HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :4246 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant challenging the order dated 31.12.2004 in M.V.O.P. No.2444 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant-injured claimant filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 28.6.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., while he was going on his scooter along with his friend, Mr. Mohd. Yousuf from Shamshabad to Shadnagar and when they reached Thondupally Village, an RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 10 Z 4875 belonging to the respondent- Corporation, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in high speed and dashed against the said scooter, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries besides some fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment where he underwent treatment. The appellant was running a beef shop and was earning about Rs. 4500/- per month. It is stated that by virtue of the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled and was unable to attend to his 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 A6. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, no documentary evidence was let in. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 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 a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, when the claim was much more. She further contended that even though the appellant filed Ex.A5, disability certificate to prove that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25%, the Tribunal did not consider the same. She also contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, she prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation 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 and A2, copies of F.I.R. and Charge Sheet to prove the occurrence of 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 examined P.W.2, Dr. Subhash Rao to show that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25% on account of the injuries sustained by him and also filed Ex.A5, disability certificate. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I feel it appropriate to take the disability at 20% instead of 25%. In so far as income of the appellant is concerned, in the instant case, the appellant pleaded that he was running a beef shop and was earning an amount of Rs.4500/- per month. However, there is no evidence on record to show that he was getting that much income, in the absence of which, his income could be notionally fixed as Rs.3000/-per month and Rs. 36,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 20%, while taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.36,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 7,200/- (36000 x 20%). 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 ‘14’. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier of 14, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.1,00,800/-. (Rs. 7200 x 14). Since the appellant claimed only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, the amount of Rs. 1,00,800/- awarded towards compensation is restricted to the claim amount. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. On deposit of such compensation amount, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 24th February, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129