HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :2077 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 9th January, 2002 in M.V.O.P. No.702 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge,Ranga Reddy District. The appellant-injured claimant fled the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 21.12.1998 while he was proceeding from Nanakramguda to Lingampally in RTC bus bearing No.2161 and when the bus reached near Railway Gate, RC Puram, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the bus turned to its left side. As a consequence, the appellant who was sitting in the bus sustained multiple fractures. Immediately, he was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he was operated upon and a steel rod was inserted. The appellant was working as a labourer and was earning an amount of Rs.1000/- per month. It is stated that by virtue of the injuries sustainedby him, he became permanently disabled and was unable to attend to the labour work. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-Corporation, filed counter affidavit denying the occurrence of the accident and also the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the appellant. Hence, it pleaded that it is not liable to pay any compensation amount. In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the doctor, who treated the appellant as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal, having found that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, was not justified in awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- when the claim was much more. He further contended that even though the appellant filed Ex.A5, disability certificate to prove that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 45%, the Tribunal did not consider the same. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has properly assessed the claim for compensation and the same needs no interference. The injured claimant, who got himself examined as P.W.1, deposed in his evidence about the occurrence of the accident. He also filed Exs. A1 to A3 and A6, to prove the occurrence of the accident. In the instant case, even though the respondent filed written statement denying the negligence, however, for the reasons best known to it, it did not choose to examine the driver of the bus or any other person to disprove the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents, the occurrence of the accident cannot be disputed and the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect cannot be interfered with. The appellant also examined P.W.2, Dr. Sibhash Rao to show that he sustained commuted frature of right tibia and tibula. He also filed Ex.A5, Disability Certificate issued by the said doctor to show that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 45%. In view of the fact that P.W.2 is a competent and qualified doctor and in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents to disprove Ex.A5, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/ as lumpsum compensation, which is quite incorrect. In the instant case, since the appellant has been working as a labourer, the income of the injured claimant can be notionally fixed as Rs.1000/-per month and Rs. 12,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 45%, while taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 5,400/- (12000 x 45%). As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON &OTHERS([1]) the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is ‘16’. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier of 16, the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.86,400/-. (Rs. 5400 x 16). In addition to this, the appellant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant is thus entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,00,400/-,which is rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation, The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129