HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1315 OF 2001 Dated: 17.03.2010 BETWEEN: Mohammed Nazeer .. Appellant And N.Satyanarayana and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1315 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order, dated 18.08.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.679 of 1997. 2. The injured claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant herein, who filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.05.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the matador van bearing No. AP 28 T 3043. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.70,000/- under various heads mentioned in the order. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 4. Though, according to the appellant he was aged 27 years on the date of accident, no evidence was placed in proof of his age. It was his version that he was running the cycle shop and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. However, he did not adduce any evidence to prove the same or to establish that he was running a cycle shop. The learned Tribunal therefore, considered his income as Rs.15,000/- per annum, which finding needs no interference in this appeal. However, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the appellant-injured as 50 years and applied multiplier 7.68. As per Ex.A.4-medical certificate the age of the appellant is 30 years. The said fact was not disputed by the respondent-insurance company before the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no basis for the Tribunal to consider the age of the appellant as 50 years and the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the appellant as 30 years. As per the evidence of PW.2, doctor, who treated the appellant, the appellant sustained fracture of right thigh which resulted in shortening of the leg and also permanent disability. He assessed the disability at 45% which is partial and permanent in nature and that he issued Ex.A.9-disability certificate. If the age of the appellant is considered to be 30 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 17. The loss of earnings suffered by the appellant therefore, comes to Rs.15,000/- x 17 x 45/100 = 1,14,750/-. The amounts awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and medical expenses being reasonable need, no interference. The appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,14,750/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,000/- = Rs.1,30,750/-. However, the interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The total enhancement therefore comes to Rs.60,750/- (Rs.1,30,750/- minus Rs.70,000/- ). 5. With the above enhancement in the compensation and the reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 17.03.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1315 OF 2001 Dated: 17.03.2010