THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3911 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree dt.25.6.2004 in O.P.No. 1209 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- as against the claim for Rs. 2,00,000/-. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 6.5.1998, the appellant was proceeding on the lorry bearing No. AP 14 1323 with a load of Red Stones from Umnabad to Hyderabad and when the lorry reached Madigi X Roads at about 5 a.m. one green colour Leyland lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on right back side of the lorry in which the appellant was travelling and consequently the lorry jolted and the appellant and two other labourers fell down from the lorry and sustained grievous injuries and during the treatment, the left thigh of the appellant was amputated. Claiming that he suffered permanent disability and also claiming that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- p.m. the appellant filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the owner and insurance company of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent, the insurer of the lorry filed a counter disputing the involvement of the lorry in which the appellant was travelling in the alleged accident and also denying that the appellant suffered permanent disability due to the accident. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 6.5.1998 at about 5 a.m. near Madigi cross roads on N.H.No. 9 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 13 T 1323? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? iii) To what relief? Before the Tribunal, the appellant himself was examined as Pw.1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as Pw.2 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.6. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal below relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 ACJ 777, 2000 ACJ 801 and 2001 ACJ 428 held that even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the owner, the owner is liable to pay damages to a person who suffered injuries on account of the accident and accordingly held that the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. Pw.2 the doctor who treated the appellant/petitioner stated in his evidence stated that he treated the appellant from 7.5.1998 to 1.8.1998 in his hospital and on 6.6.1998, he conducted operation and amputated the left thigh of the appellant and he further stated that the appellant suffered 70% disability and he also issued Ex:A.6, the disability certificate. The Tribunal below basing on the disability certificate Ex:A.6 and also taking into consideration the evidence of Pw.2, assessed that the appellant suffered 70% disability. The Tribunal below taking into consideration the age of the appellant at 36 years, estimated the income of the petitioner at Rs. 18,000/- p.a. (Rs. 1500/- p.m.) since there was no documentary evidence to prove that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- p.m. Out of the said amount of Rs. 18,000/- 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses and concluded the annual income of the appellant at Rs. 12,000/- p.a. The Tribunal below applied the multiplier 16 and calculated the total compensation at Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 12000 X 16). Since the petitioner sustained 70% disability, an amount of Rs. 1,34,4000/-(which was rounded off to Rs. 1,35,000/-) was granted as 70% of total compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- and fastened the liability on the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, by the Award impugned in this appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned award of the Tribunal below, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal below ought to have accepted the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 1800/- and that his loss of earning capacity must have been held at 100% instead of 70% since he was a labourer and he cannot attend to labour work due to amputation of left thigh and that the Tribunal below ought to have awarded compensation towards transportation, extra nourishment, pain and suffering etc., On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the Award of the Tribunal. Since the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to show that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- p.m., the Tribunal rightly estimated the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 1500/- i.e. 18,000/- p.a. According to Ex:A.6 the appellant sustained 70% disability, which the respondents did not dispute. Therefore, 70% of annual income of the appellant comes to Rs. 12,600/-, which he lost due to his disability. As per the latest decision of the Supreme Court, the multiplier that can be applied to the age of the appellant is 15. Thus the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,89,000/- ( Rs. 12,600 X 15). In addition to the above amount, the appellant is also granted to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses. In all the appellant/petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,99,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 24.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3911 of 2004. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.3.2011.