HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3291 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the claimant in O.P. No.95 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - District Judge, Ananthapur. She filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on 10-03-196. The appellant is the resident of Olimicherlopalli village, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapur District. It was stated that when her child was playing in the street, a tractor bearing No.AP 02T 3421, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, was coming in a rash and negligent manner and that she went to rescue the child. In the process, the tractor is said to have dashed against the appellant resulting in several injuries. She pleaded that her income is Rs.24,000/- per year from the lands owned by her. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. 2. The O.P. was opposed by the 2nd respondent alone. Through its order, dated 02-07-2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,800/- under various heads with interest at 9%. The appellant is not satisfied with the award of compensation and prays for enhancement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Occurrence of the accident and suffering of injuries by the appellant are not disputed. Before the Tribunal, the appellant deposed as PW-1, her husband as PW-2 and the Doctor, who treated her as PW-3. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent. Copy of the Insurance Policy was filed as Ex.B-1. 5. The Tribunal recorded the finding to the effect that the appellant sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is said to have been dismissed. Therefore, the finding on that aspect has become final. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal discussed the matter at length with reference to the evidence on record and recorded findings, be it on expenditure, disability, income of the appellant, or the nature of treatment. It was held that one leg of the appellant was shortened by 2 inches, and its movement is restricted. The disability suffered by the appellant is certified to be at 40% and the finding in this regard has become final. 7. While determining the compensation to be awarded on account of disability, the Tribunal has taken the annual income of the appellant as Rs.10,800/- and the loss of earnings was estimated at Rs.4,320/- being 40% thereof. Multiplier 15 was applied. The appellant was aged 25 years at the time of accident. The multiplier that is applicable to a person of that age is 18. Even assuming that there was no proof as to the income of the appellant, Schedule – II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a guidance in this regard. Rs.15,000/- per annum is stipulated as the minimum. 40% of it comes to Rs.6,000/-. With the multiplier 18, the loss of earnings of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,08,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.64,800/-. Difference would be Rs.43,200/-. The appellant deserves to be awarded that amount in addition to what was already awarded by the Tribunal. No interference is wanted as to the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, enhancing the compensation by Rs.43,200/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. The conditions that are stipulated in the order passed by the Tribunal, shall hold good for the enhanced amount also. It is represented that in CMA No.1764 of 2004, this Court permitted the 2nd respondent herein to pay the amount and recover the same from the 1st respondent. The same shall hold good for the enhanced amount in this appeal also. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 05, 2011. KTL