THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.256 OF 2003 DATED: 30-11-2009 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Raja Mill Road, Pollachi. ..... APPELLANT And Kasula Peddamma & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 19-08-2002, in O.P.No.332 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15-03-1996. According to her, on that day she along with some others came to Morammeeda vaddepalli of Chettipalli village to attend the death ceremony of her relatives and while she was returning she got down from the bus at Guttapalli bus stop and in the meanwhile a lorry bearing No.K-11-1869, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from Kalacada side and dashed against the claimant as a result of which she sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of the left foot which was completely crushed. She was taken to the Government hospital, Rayachoty and from there, she was shifted to Government hospital, Kadapa for treatment and she was inpatient for three months. She underwent operation and a steel rod was fixed in the foot. The injuries resulted in permanent disability. The claimant was aged 48 years and was hale and hearty and earning Rs.1500/- per month by doing coolie work. On account of the accident, she lost her earning capacity. 4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even according to the averments in the claim application the claimant is aged 48 years but the Tribunal has erroneously taken her age as 45 years and applied higher multiplier of ‘15’ in assessing the loss of earning capacity. 8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously challenged. The medical evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W.2-Medical Officer, who examined the claimant-P.W.1 and issued eligibility certificate-Ex.A4, would go to show that the injury sustained by the claimant has resulted in partial permanent disability to an extent of 30%. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was a coolie. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- p.a. However, the Tribunal has taken the age of the claimant as 45 years, based on the wound certificate-Ex.A2 and applied the multiplier ‘15’ and arrived at loss of earning capacity in a sum of Rs.67,500/-. Even as per the averments in the claim application, the claimant was aged 48 years by the date of the accident. At the time of giving evidence, two years later, the claimant stated that she was aged 50 years. When the claimant herself has disclosed her age as 48 years by filing a claim application, the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration instead of the age approximately noted in the wound certificate-Ex.A2. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), which can be taken as a guide, though the claim application is not filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the suitable multiplier applicable for a person aged 48 years would be ‘13’. Even as per a recent judgment of the apex Court in SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the suitable multiplier for the age of the claimant is ‘13’ only. Thus, applying the said multiplier ‘13’, the compensation payable to the claimant for the loss of earning capacity on account of the disability to the extent of 30% comes to Rs.58,500/- The other amounts granted by the Tribunal towards injuries in a sum of Rs.12,000/-; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.500/- towards transportation charges, are all considered to be just and reasonable. Thus, the claimant will be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.91,000./- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly to the extent stated above. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2009 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298