IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 208 of 2006 Date of decision: 01.07.2010 Krishan Lal ... Appellant Versus Dev Raj and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, dated 7.3.2006, vide which the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed and the petitioner was granted compensation amounting to Rs.4,86,640/- alongwith interest. 2. Being aggrieved by the less compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner has come up by way of the present appeal before this Court. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Act claiming compensation to the extent of Rupees Ten Lacs from the respondents. The petitioner alleged that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 1, driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3. The petitioner alleged that he had been under treatment, had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 65%. He alleged his income at Rupees One Lac from agriculture and Rs.4,500/- from masonry work and accordingly, claimed compensation to the extent of Rupees Ten Lacs. Respondents denied the allegations. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, in question, by respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner sustained injuries and is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of occurrence of the accident, if so its effect. OPR 3 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven without documents like R.C., fitness certificate, route permit etc.? OPR 3 5. Whether there is collusion between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2? OPR 3 6. Relief. 5. Parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal vide its impugned award granted a sum of Rs.4,86,640/-. The appeal has been filed by the petitioner claiming that less compensation 3 was awarded and that he was not awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition. 6. Coming to the amount awarded under different heads, the learned Tribunal has observed that the income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.3000/- P.M. only, which ordinarily a daily wage gets. The learned Tribunal also observed that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was working as a Mason. It also observed that no person was examined to prove that the petitioner was working as a Mason. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered the statement of PW-3 Sukh Ram, who stated that the petitioner was also working as a Mason. He was also doing the agriculture work on contract basis as per his statement and accordingly, the learned Tribunal only held that the petitioner was entitled to a monthly income, which was assessed at Rs.3000/- P.M. This income was of ordinary labourer work. However, there is statement of the petitioner himself on oath coupled with the statement of PW-3 Sukh Ram that he was doing the work of Mason, who ordinarily gets double the amount. Therefore, in case the petitioner gets Rs.200/- per day, as such, the monthly income is assessed at Rs.6000/- P.M. on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner, which was not rebutted by the respondents. Therefore, the income of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.6000/- P.M. He has suffered permanent disability vide certificate Ext. PW4/A and the disability was in relation to the whole body. Therefore, the loss of earnings can be said to the extent of 65%, which comes to Rs.3900/- P.M. The petitioner alleged his age as 26 years, which has not been disputed by the respondents and there is statement of petitioner himself as PW-1 in this regard. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. According to this decision, their Lordships had clearly laid down the multiplier which should be applied to the age groups. The petitioner was of the age of 26 years and multiplier has to be applied of 17. Applying the above decision and applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation comes to Rs.3900 x 12 x 17 = Rs.7,95,600/-. 7. In regard to the other grounds, the petitioner had not made any specific allegations that he had engaged an attendant and had been paying Rs.2000/- P.M. to him, though the petitioner himself as PW-1 had stated so. The said person was also not examined to show that the petitioner had engaged him. Therefore, in such vague assertions, a sum of Rs.5000/-, in all is being granted as charges for the attendant. 8. Coming to the bills, Ext.P-1 to P-34 have been proved for medical charges as well as taxi charges, which comes to Rs.26,934/- and the learned Tribunal has rightly granted a sum of Rs.26,640/- and the said amount is increased to Rs.27,000/- approximately, to which the petitioner is held entitled. Under the head of pain and suffering, the petitioner has already been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which cannot be said to be less and is adequate and, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court. 9. Coming to the submission that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% and that too from the date of decision, the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% as per the latest law from the date of filing of the petition, to which he is held entitled. The petitioner has already been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loss of amenities, to which he is also entitled as per 5 the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 9,27,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till deposit. 10. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to this extent alongwith cost including lawyer’s fees which is assessed at Rs.4000/- payable by the Insurance Company. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 01, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6