HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2745 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.828 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, where-under a claim for Rs.10,00,000/- was made for the injuries said to have been received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 07.06.2002 when the petitioner was going on his cycle, jeep bearing No.AP 20/T 139 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner, due to which the jeep ran over the right hand of the petitioner and later dashed to a road side tree, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. The 1st respondent, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company, which filed counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by him and also the medical expenses incurred by him. After considering the rival contentions, the lower Tribunal has accepted the cause of incident and cause of the injuries and granted a compensation of Rs.2,69,330/-. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the present appeal is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and also the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, there is no dispute. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the petitioner has got amputation of the right upper limb. Though the evidence of PW.2 showed that there was 75% disability, the Tribunal has taken disability at 50% and computed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day and granted the compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal should not have deducted the 1/3rd contribution from the earnings of the deceased and also should not have reduced the percentage of disability. Evidently, except the evidence of PW.2, there is no evidence of any competent Medical Board having examined the petitioner and found the percentage of the disability. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the opinion expressed by the lower Tribunal in fixing the disability at 50% is reasonable. 9. It is not in dispute that in case of injuries, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses will not arise and consequently the total earnings, which was fixed by the lower Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day has to be taken into consideration and if the said amount is taken into consideration, the annual contribution comes to Rs.36,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the multiplier should have been only ‘17’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], but not 17.66. Therefore, after applying the multiplier ‘17’, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,06,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 17). The Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.30,920/-, which was said to be towards the medical expenses. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for pain and suffering due to the injuries and also no amount has been granted towards extra nourishment or transport charges. Taking into consideration all the above facts, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted as compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,61,920/-, which is rounded up to Rs.3,65,000/-. The interest on the enhanced amount shall be at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:08.12.2011 INL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298