THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1977 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant-claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, aggrieved by what has been awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O.P.No. 565 of 2000, on 07.11.2002. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The claimant filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 18.01.2000, at about 12.30 p.m. at Pile Circle, Vikarabad. He stated that at that time, he was proceeding as a pillion rider over a scooter bearing No. AHA 1129, then a lorry bearing No. ABT 2798 belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, due to which, he fell down and received fractures and other injuries. According to him, he was earning Rs.8,010/- per month by the date of the accident and due to the accident, he could not attend to his duties resulting in loss of earnings, in addition to incurring much expenditure towards treatment. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent insurer of the lorry, it has been averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident on 18.01.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent’s lorry by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During trial, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A16. P.W.2 has marked Exs.X1 and X2 during the course of his evidence. The 2nd respondent has marked Ex.B1 with the consent of the appellant. The Tribunal, based on Ex.A1, a copy of the First Information Report, wherein rash and negligent driving was attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, which finding does not warrant any interference now. In so far as issue Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 94,000/- under all counts. To prove the factum of disability suffered and to establish his income, the appellant examined P.Ws.3 and 2 respectively. P.W.3, who is a doctor, deposed that the appellant suffered 40% disability and he accordingly, issued Ex.A15 disability certificate. P.W.2, who was the Administrative Officer of T.B. Sanatorium, Anathagiri of Vikarabad, was examined to prove the income of the injured. The 2nd respondent insurance company has not elicited contrary thereto from the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the disability of the injured has to be taken as 40% and his income as Rs.8,000/- per month. Then, the loss of earning capacity is Rs.3,200/- per month (40% x Rs.8,000/- per month). It comes to Rs.38,400/- annually. The appropriate multiplier, according to the age of the injured, is “11”. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded to the injured comes to Rs.38,400/- x 11 = Rs.4,22,400/-. But however, the appellant claimed the compensation at Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, he is entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- only. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above modification, the Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 30th December 2010 ksld