THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2527 of 2000 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Being not satisfied with the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded towards compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sessions Judge), Guntur (for brevity “the Tribunal”), as against the claim of Rs.90,000/-, by order and decree, dated 26.04.1994, in M.V.O.P.No.509 of 1991, for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident that occurred on 28.4.1991, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of lorry, bearing registration No.AAV 493, belonging to the first respondent, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, first respondent is the owner of the offending lorry and second respondent is its insurer in the O.P., before the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties herein are referred to as “the claimant”, “the owner” and “the insurer”, respectively. 5. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation. Hence the present appeal. 6. There is no much dispute about the accident occurred and involvement of the offending lorry. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is what is the gravity of the injury and whether it is sufficient to grant compensation as prayed for. The other particulars regarding the accident are not referred to since not in dispute. 7. It is evident from the record that because of the accident, the claimant suffered injuries on his right hand and his hand was fractured above the elbow, below elbow and wrist. He was treated in Government Hospital and was also surgically operated because of which he incurred substantial expenditure. 8. Admittedly, the claimant was working in stone quarry. He claimed compensation on the basis of his earnings at Rs.50/- per day by virtue of his profession. But, during the course of cross-examination, the counsel representing the insurer had suggested that the claimant was getting only Rs.25/- per day, but not Rs.50/- per day, as claimed. 9. From the above cross-examination, it is clear that the very case of the insurer was that the income of the claimant was only Rs.25/- per day. Therefore, it is absolutely safe to conclude that the claimant was earning atleast Rs.25/- per day. 10. Further, it is not in dispute that because of the injuries sustained by him, the claimant was not in a position to involve in his occupation. The medical evidence on record also speaks about the same. Actually, the permanent disability, as spoken to by the doctor, is to the extent of 65%. In my view, the disability though appears to be partial, virtually it is a permanent disability, since the claimant is deprived of his occupation, and there was no rebuttal evidence in this regard. 11. In this regard, it is to be seen that the claimant was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident, for which the maximum multiplier that can be adopted is ‘18’. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it appropriate to apply the multiplier ‘16’ and in which event, the quantum of compensation that is to be arrived would be beyond the compensation claimed by the claimant. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to confine the claim to the extent claimed i.e., Rs.90,000/-. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only). The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) shall carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P., before the Tribunal till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 24.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2527 of 2000 24.06.2010 (Msr)