THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.3391 of 2005 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed O.P.No.157 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 31.10.2002 at about 5.30 PM due to dashing of a lorry bearing No.AP 28T 8996 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. By the award impugned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. The appellant filed MACMAMP No.4994 of 2010 before this Court seeking to amend the claim amount at Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P.No.157 of 2003. The second respondent filed counter stating that if the said petition is allowed, the matter has to be remanded for further adjudication. Having regard to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the counter-affidavit, the said petition is ordered. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that though the claimant sustained 30% permanent disability due to shortening of his left leg as per Ex.A10-disability certificate issued by P.W2-Doctor, the Tribunal has not considered the same and it awarded less compensation to the claimant. 4. P.W.2-doctor stated in his evidence that the appellant sustained 30% permanent disability because of mal-union of fracture and there is shortening of left leg. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate, but the Doctor, who treated the appellant and issued Ex.A10, was not examined. Therefore, based on the evidence of P.W.2, this Court is of the view that 25% disability can be taken to assess his future loss of earnings. The appellant stated that he was aged 24 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month as a Fitter in Sri Venkateshwara Steels. Since the accident occurred in 2002, it would be appropriate to assess his monthly income at Rs.2,000/-per month and annually at Rs.24,000/- out of which, 25% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards permanent disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.6,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 24 years is ‘18’, and thereby, the compensation towards permanent disability comes to Rs.6,000X18=1,08,000/-. In addition to it, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.29,341/-towards medical bills awarded by the Tribunal, is also awarded. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.1,67,341/-, rounded to Rs.1,67,340/-, is awarded to the claimant. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,67,340/-. The order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.02.2011 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121