THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3549 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 28.02.2003, passed in O.P.No.1260 of 2001 by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.200, while the appellant was going on his cycle at 11.00 am near Bhongir town railway-over-bridge, an ambassador car bearing Registration No.AP15G 369, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in an opposite direction and hit his cycle, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries all over his body and his leg was amputated below the knee. Therefore, he filed the present O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The first respondent, being the owner of the car, remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made and contending that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,000/- to the appellant-claimant. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of the Doctor, who was examined as PW.2, to the effect that the appellant sustained 45% disability and erred in granting meager amount as compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is stated that the appellant used to work as labour and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has taken Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income. However, taking into consideration the age of the appellant, interests of justice would be met if the monthly income of the appellant is taken at Rs.2,500/- per month as labour. With regard to the disability, though the evidence of PW.2- Doctor coupled with Ex.A3-Wound Certificate would clearly indicate that the appellant sustained 45% disability, the learned Judge has taken the disability to the extent of 15%, which in my opinion is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the monthly income of the appellant is taken at Rs.2,500/- and taking into consideration 45% disability as per Ex.A3, his monthly loss of earnings would come to Rs.1,125/- (Rs.2,500/- x 45%) and Rs.13,500/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of the appellant is ‘16’. Therefore, his loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,16,000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,16,000/-, which is more than the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by him. It is settled principle of law that the Courts can award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the claimants (see Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh[1]). However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant is directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part. No costs ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] 2003(1) ALD-1 (SC)