THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1508 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant-claimant against the award, dated 06.02.2008 passed in O.P.No.2365 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 25.03.2005 at about 12.30 PM when the claimant was going on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 28 AM 5702 to Kukatpally, he met with an accident near Nizampet Cross Roads, due to dashing of it by one DCM van bearing No.AP 28 U 807 on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. He sustained fracture and other injuries all over the body. Hence, he filed O.P.No.2365 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. By the award impugned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,82,600/- to the claimant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- as he completed his M.Tech. studies, and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month by giving tuitions. He further contended that though the claimant had sustained 25-30% disability due to shortening of left leg and lost his marriage prospects, the Tribunal awarded less compensation to him. He thus, prays to enhance the compensation to the claimant. 4. There is no dispute as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.2-Doctor, who issued Ex.A6-disability certificate, stated that the claimant sustained permanent partial disability at 25-30% due to shortening of his left leg and he lost his marriage prospects. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.1-claimant and Exs.A11 to A16, he completed his M.Tech. studies. Therefore, he might have earned at least a sum of Rs.9,000/-per month and annually at Rs.1,08,000/-. As the claimant had sustained 25-30% disability as per the evidence of P.W.2, 25% has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the compensation and thereby, it comes to Rs.27,000/-. Since the age of the claimant was 27 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘17’. Then, the compensation towards 25% disability comes to Rs.27,000X17=4,59,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads i.e., Rs.51,600/-for medical expenses, Rs.25,000/-for future surgery and Rs.25,000/-for pain and suffering should be added to that amount and in total, it comes to Rs.5,60,600/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,82,600/- to Rs.5,60,600/-. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:21.10.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121