THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4081 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant-claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, aggrieved by what has been awarded by the II Additional District Judge, Nellore in O.P.No. 358 of 2001, on 08.04.2003. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The claimant filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,09,846/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 12.06.1999, at about 11.00 a.m. on Nellore-Kodur road, near Chinathopu Agraharam, when he was proceeding on a motor cycle. At that time, a lorry bearing No. AHH 3087 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and hit the motor cycle of the appellant, as a result, himself along with the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. According to the appellant, he was a Post Graduate in Pharmacology and an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He underwent treatment for a long period, for the injuries. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. In the counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent insurer of the lorry denied the pleas taken by the appellant and disputed the validity of the insurance of the lorry. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of R-1’s lorry? (2) Whether R-1’s lorry stood insured with R-2 on the date of the accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk of the claimant? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? (4) To what relief? During trial, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined one A. Muneiah as P.W.2, Dr.G. Padmaja Rani, who rendered treatment at the Government Hospital, Nellore at the first instance as P.W.3 and D.S. Ravi Subrahmanyan, the doctor at Chennai as P.W.4 and got marked Exs.1 to A15. On behalf of the Insurance company, Exs. B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A3, held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry. It answered the 2nd issue in favour of the claimant, holding that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. Coming to the compensation aspect, the Tribunal, considering the entire material available on record, held that the injured spent Rs. 72,815/- towards medical expenses and transportation charges. With regard to the disability, the doctors certified that the injured suffered 35% disability, but in view of the fact that he was doing agricultural work at that time, it can be presumed that he does the agriculture by engaging the required coolies and therefore, he would not sustain any loss of earnings and it thus denied the compensation on that count. Now, the appellant preferred this appeal questioning the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded is not at all commensurate with the loss of earning capacity suffered by him and the expenditure incurred for the treatment taken for the injuries. Heard Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the appellant is a post graduate in pharmacology and is an agriculturist, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed some amount towards his income. In view of the facts and circumstances, Rs.5,000/- per month is to be taken as his monthly income. If disability is taken as 35% as certified by the doctors, then it comes to Rs.5,000/- x 35% = 1,750/- per month. Annually, it comes to Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees 1,750/- x 12). As per the decision in the judgment reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’, since the injured is aged about 47 years at the time of filing this appeal. Therefore, the compensation amount towards loss of earning capacity is Rs.2,73,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x ‘13’). An additional amount of Rs.7,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. In total, the amount to be paid to the appellant is Rs.2,80,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above modification, the Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 30th December 2010 ksld [1] AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104