HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :842 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2004 in O.P. No. 1272 of 2002 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant is the injured claimant. According to the appellant, on 14.4.2002, at about 11.00 p.m., while he was waiting on the upper tank bund road by sitting on a scooter, which was parked there, a Maruthi car bearing No. AP 9H 2711 came from behind and dashed the scooter, as a result, he sustained fracture of hip joint and he was shifted to Gandhi General Hospital. The appellant was aged abut 40 years as on the date of the accident. He was engaged in the business of sale of soft toys and was earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The appellant also pleaded that by virtue of the injuries sustained by him, he had sustained disability to an extent of 40%. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. While opposing the O.P., the 1st respondent filed its counter denying rash and negligence on the part of the driver of its car and pleaded that since the car was duly insured with the 2nd respondent, he is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the 2nd respondent-insurance company alone has to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter denying the manner of accident. It also disputed the income of the appellant and the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 11 H 2711? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the doctors as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs. 1,42,0000/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant filed the present appeal. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the appellant stated that he was earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month by selling soft toys, the Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs.1250/- per month. He further submitted that even though the appellant examined P.W.2, the doctor to show that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 40%, the Tribunal did not take the same into consideration. He further submitted that even though the appellant filed Exs.A4 to A6 and A8, medical bills to show that he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 80,000/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal only granted an amount of Rs.30,448-05 paise. Therefore, he contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, supported the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident. The only dispute is with regard to granting of compensation amount. The appellant, in order to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, examined P.Ws.2 and 3, the doctors, who treated him. It is the evidence of the doctors that the appellant sustained vascular nephrosis and therefore, hip replacement had to be done and if the same is not done, the appellant cannot lead normal life and he will be having pain while walking and moving. They further stated for the purpose of removal of the implants and replacement of the rod in the hip joint, one more surgery is required to be performed upon him, for which, he may have to incur a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- . P.W.2, the doctor who conducted surgery on the appellant further stated that the appellant required further surgery, involving replacement total hip and he may incur an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He further stated that the appellant sustained disability to an extent of 40% by virtue of the injuries sustained by him and also issued Ex.A10 to show that he sustained the said disability. In the instant case, since respondent No.2 did not file any contra evidence to disprove the same, in the absence of which, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the version of P.W.2 that the appellant suffered disability to an extent of 40%. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, according to the appellant, he was engaged in the business of selling of soft toys and was earning about Rs.6000/- per month. As there is no evidence on record to show that he was earning that much amount, I feel it appropriate to take the notional income of the appellant at Rs.2500/- per month and Rs.30000/- annually. Taking into account the fact that the appellant sustained 40% disability, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.12000/-. (Rs.30000x40%). In so far as multiplier is concerned, since the appellant was aged about 42 years as on the date of the accident, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON & OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the appellant is 14. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs. 12,000/- x 14). In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.20,000/- for future surgery and Rs. 30,448.05 ps., towards medical expenses as awarded by the Court below. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,35,448.05 ps., which is rounded off to Rs.2,35,500/- as compensation. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is granted an amount of Rs.2,35,500/- as compensation instead of Rs.1,42,000/- as awarded by the Court below. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE:31st March, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129