THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2805 and Cross Objection (SR) No.52202 of 2005 JUDGMENT The appellant-owner of crime vehicle filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 31.05.2005, passed in O.P.No.215 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The respondent/claimant filed the cross-objection. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31.08.1998 at about 7.00 P.M., when the claimant was proceeding on Bajaj M 80 scooter as a pillion rider, a car bearing No.AP 27 C 6255, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter, due to which, he sustained multiple injuries. He filed O.P.No.215 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-payable by the appellant. Since the car was not insured at the time of accident, the O.P. is filed against the appellant only. The appellant contested the matter by filing a counter-affidavit. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of scooter, in which the claimant was a pillion rider. He further contended that Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-per month, which is high and exorbitant and that it awarded higher compensation to the claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that from the date of the accident till today, the claimant has been suffering from injury to his left leg and is paralyzed in driving the vehicles. He further contended that though the claimant filed medical bills before the Tribunal, it has not granted any compensation for the same. He submitted that the claimant has to undergo further plastic surgery and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter is merit less, because he has not adduced any evidence. As regards the monthly income of the claimant is concerned, he was aged 30 years and was earning a sum of Rs.10,500/-per month as a driver by taking a car bearing No.AP 27 T 7909 on hire at the time of accident and he also produced the documents concerned, as per which, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and annually at Rs.36,000/-. Since the Tribunal has rightly taken his monthly income based on the documentary evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. But, the multiplier for the age group of 30 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘17’. Therefore, the same can be taken into account instead of ‘18’ as taken by the Tribunal, thereby, it comes to Rs.36,000X17=6,12,000/-. Since the disability sustained by the claimant is at 45% as per Ex.A11, 45% can be taken into account from Rs.6,12,000/- and thereby it comes to Rs.2,75,400/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,75,400/- is awarded to the claimant towards loss of earning capacity. 6. Insofar as the compensation towards medical bills is concerned, the Tribunal has not considered those bills on the ground that they are not proved by examining the doctor concerned. From a perusal of the order impugned, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards medical expenses. P.W4- Surgeon, Government Hospital, Ongole, stated in his evidence that after conducting surgery to the left leg of the claimant on 10.09.1998, plates and screws were fixed and subsequently, the wound was infected and secondary scrutiny was conducted and is continuing treatment from time to time and that on 14.10.1999 plates were removed. He further stated that the claimant is having non-healing ulcer of let leg with sequestrum exposing through the wound and there is shortening of 3/4th inch with limitation of ankle movement and is having partial permanent disability of 30% to 35% and he requires plastic surgery. As per the evidence of P.W.4, the claimant has been suffering from unhealed injury to his left leg and taking treatment from the date of the accident and he also requires further plastic surgery and for which, he necessarily spent some amount towards medical expenses. Therefore, considering the injury sustained by the claimant, who appeared before the Court and as it is not healed till today, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses. 7. The total compensation awarded under the heads of loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,75,400/- and medical bills at Rs.30,000/- comes to Rs.3,05,400/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income, cost of steel plates, pain and suffering, two simple injuries, travelling expenses and special diet, totalling to Rs.24,500/- is also added. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.3,29,900/-, which is rounded to Rs.3,30,000/- is awarded as compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.3,30,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:26.08.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121