HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :295 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.6.2007 in O.P. No. 8 of 2004 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judge- cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant is the injured claimant. According to the appellant, on 30.11.2003, while he was going from Venkatapuram to Secunderabad Club and when he reached near R.T.A. office, his vehicle gave some trouble and he stopped it. At that time, a lorry bearing No. AP 10 T 6506 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant. As a result, he sustained a fracture to his right thigh and right ankle and also received injuries to forehead and left leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital where he was admitted. The appellant pleaded that he spent an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and by virtue of the injuries received by him, he was confined to bed for a long time and he is still undergoing treatment. The appellant, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. While opposing the O.P., the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It also disputed the age, avocation and earnings of the injured. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 30.11.2003 at about 10.00p.m. near RTA office due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 10 T 6506 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A 19 were marked. 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.2,88,600/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant filed the present appeal. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was working in Secunderabad Club and was getting an amount of Rs.2500/- per month towards salary besides subsidized meals. He further submitted that the Court below did not consider the loss of earnings of the appellant from the date of the petition till February/March,2007. He, therefore, 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. In order to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, the appellant examined P.W.3, the doctor, who treated him. It is the evidence of the doctor that the appellant suffered fractures to right femur, left ankle and right tibia and such fractures would normally affect the performance of the appellant on account of pain and restriction of movements. According to the medical Board of Gandhi Hospital, the appellant sustained disability to an extent of 45% and they have also issued Ex.A19,disability certificate to that effect, which was rightly accepted by the Court below and the same needs no interference. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, according to the appellant, he was working in Secunderabad Club and was earning about Rs.2500/- per month besides getting subsidized meals. Hence, I feel it appropriate to take the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- annually instead of Rs. 2500/-, as taken by the Court below. Taking into account the fact that the appellant sustained 45% disability, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.16,200/-. (Rs.36000x45%). In so far as multiplier is concerned, since the appellant was aged about 38 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 15. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs. 16200/- x 15). Since the appellant was on leave for taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earnings. In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.16,247/- towards purchase of medicines and purchase of implants; Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs. 2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.300/- towards damages and Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering for the four fractures sustained by him. In all, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,81,547/- as compensation instead of Rs.2,88,600/-. 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