HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.1873 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is filed by the appellant-injured claimant challenging the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.578 of 2000. The appellant filed the above O.P., alleging that on 19.4.2000, while the appellant along with his relatives was returning from Hussainaiah Darga in Duvvur Mandal in their bullock cart and when they reached near Bayanapalli Katta, a lorry bearing No. KA 09 A 9979 dashed the bullock cart. As a result, they were all thrown out and the appellant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Proddatur where he underwent treatment. Appellant, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The 1st respondent, the owner of the lorry filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal denying the various allegations levelled by the appellant. He stated that since the lorry is insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company, the 2nd respondent alone has to pay the compensation. While opposing the O.P., the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the plea of the appellant that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It also disputed the age and avocation of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 19.4.2000due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. KA 09 A 9979 belonging to 1st respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the appellant, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the doctor, P.W.2 to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, which took place on 19.4.2000. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and it accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 78,000/- as compensation to the appellant together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. He further submitted that even though the appellant filed Ex.A3, disability certificate to show that he sustained disability to an extent of 40%, the Tribunal did not take the same into consideration and granted a very meagre amount of Rs. 78,000/- as compensation. He further contended that the appellant was working as a mason and was earning Rs.3,600/- per month and by virtue of the accident, he lost his earning capacity considerably. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company supported the impugned order and stated that the impugned order does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who got himself examined as P.W.1, deposed in his evidence that on 19.4.2000 while he was going on his bullock cart along with others from Hussainaiah Darga to his house and when he reached Bayanapali Mitta, the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent came from behind and dashed the bullock cart. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. He also filed the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, Exs. A1 and A2 to prove the same. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, though the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was working as a mason and was earning an amount of Rs. 3600/- per month, however, he did not file any material to show that he was getting that much income. However, taking the young age of the appellant into consideration, I am of the opinion that the appellant would have definitely earned an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month. The appellant also examined P.W.2, the doctor to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident in question. According to P.W.2, the appellant sustained a fracture to his left femur, besides an injury on the right side of his head. He further deposed that there is a mal-union of fracture and that the appellant also lost his front two teeth. He stated that by virtue of the injuries received by the appellant in the accident in question, he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 40%. He also issued Ex.A3, disability Certificate to that extent. When Ex.3 has been issued by a competent and qualified doctor, I do not find any justification for the Tribunal to discard the same. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 40%, while taking the average monthly earnings of the appellant at Rs.2000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 9,600/- annually.(Rs.24,000/- x 40%) Now, coming to the question of multiplier is concerned, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is 17. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.1,63,200/- (Rs.9600X17). In addition to this, the appellant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.13,000/- towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. So, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,76,200/- as compensation. Since the appellant has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- only as compensation, the compensation amount is restricted to the claim amount. Accordingly, the appellant is granted an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 78,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 20.1.2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129