THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 1588 of 2006 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 27.01.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in M.V.O.P. No. 726 of 2002, contending that the compensation awarded to respondent No.1-claimant is exorbitant and needs to be reduced. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company did not dispute the manner in which the accident took place and the sustaining of injuries by respondent No.1-claimant. However, he contended that the compensation of Rs. 11,82,768/- awarded by the Tribunal to respondent No.1-claimant as against her claim of Rs.14,32,856/-, is on the higher side and needs reduction. He submitted that as respondent No.1-claimant was aged 34 years, the relevant multiplier applicable is 13, but the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 17. He further submitted that considering the permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1-claimant, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one- third of the notional income fixed towards her personal expenses. He further submitted that the Tribunal having awarded Rs.4,89,600/- towards compensation, committed an error in awarding further amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and Rs.1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses. And that even if respondent No.1-claimant is entitled to compensation under the said heads, the same being on the higher side needs reduction. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for respondent No.1- claimant supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal, and contended that considering the nature of permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1-claimant in the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads detailed in the award, cannot be said to be on the higher side warranting its reduction by this Court in appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant and perused the judgment and award under appeal. Respondent No.1-claimant, admittedly, lost her right leg in the accident. Her right leg was amputated above the knee, and this is evident from Exs. A5 to A10-photographs. Under Ex. A49-Disability Certificate, the disability of respondent No.1, due to amputation of her right leg above the knee, was assessed at 85%. Respondent No.1- claimant to prove her disability, relied on Exs. A5 to A10-photographs and Ex. A49-Disability Certificate and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5, namely the Additional Professor Orthopedic, NIMC, Hyderabad and the Superintendent, MGM Hospital, Warangal. The appellant- Insurance Company, did not choose to examine any Doctor to disprove Ex. 49-Disability Certificate. Considering the evidence placed by respondent No.1-claimant, the Tribunal fixed the permanent partial disability of respondent No.1-claimant at 80%, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding, particularly when the appellant-Insurance Company, did not dispute the said finding. Respondent No.1-claimant claimed that she was doing business in garments and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and because of the disability suffered by her, she is not able to do business and attend on her children. The Tribunal considering Ex. A11- Commercial Tax Department, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1-claimant, as a sleeping partner in Kwality Collections, was doing business in garments, but she did not pay tax. However, in the absence of proof of income produced, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No.1-claimant was doing business and her annual income can be notionally assessed at Rs.3,000/-, and accordingly, taking the said amount as her income per month, worked out the loss of income at Rs.36,000/- per annum. Respondent No.1, admittedly, is aged 34 years. The Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation, applied the multiplier 17. But as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the relevant multiplier applicable to a person aged 34 years is 16. Therefore, the compensation has to be worked out by applying 16 multiplier. As respondent No.1-claimant, suffered 80% permanent partial disability, 80% of Rs.36,000/-, would come to Rs.28,800/-, which has to be multiplied by the multiplier 16. Thus the compensation for her disability would come to Rs.4,60,800/-, and accordingly, the compensation towards loss of earning stands reduced from Rs. 4,89,600/- to Rs.4,60,800/-. As can be seen from the evidence produced by respondent No.1-claimant, she was hospitalized, her right leg for amutated above the knee and her right hand also became weak. She produced medical bills etcs., evidencing the amount spent by her towards her treatment. Considering the medical bills and the amounts spent by her for her treatment, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 4,43,168/- towards medical bill, which includes the bill towards purchase of artificial limb, and we find no reason whatsoever to reduce the same, particularly when the compensation granted under the said head, stands supported by medical bills etc. In view of the time spent by respondent No.1-claimant for treatment and the disability suffered by her and the post-medical care which she needs for such disability, she has to bear till her death, we are of the considered opinion that the grant of compensation by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses, cannot be said to be on the higher side, warranting its reduction. Thus in all, respondent No.1-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,53,968/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs. 11,82,768/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.11,53,968/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 29th August, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121