THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3750 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant was employed as a Trimmer in the Singareni Collieries. In the year 1999, he was working on a mine near Mancherial. On 15.11.1999, he was proceeding on a scooter at 5:00 pm. When he reached a place known as Andhra Colony, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 1U 141, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, is said to have dashed against the scooter. The appellant fell down and received multiple injuries. Initially, he was treated at the Government Hospital, Mancherial and thereafter, in the NIMS, Hyderabad. He filed M.V.O.P.No.775 of 2000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Warangal, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents. During the pendency of the O.P., the injuries became aggravated resulting in amputation of leg. He was also removed from service on account of the disability. Therefore, he revised the claim to Rs.10,00,000/- The 1st respondent filed a counter, denying the allegations as to negligence, but pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a counter opposing the O.P. and putting the appellant to proof of the facts pleaded by him. Through order, dated 11.07.2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Not satisfied with that, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sri Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had ignored some serous aspects, such as loss of employment, amputation of leg, resulting in permanent disability. He also submits that even for a simple serious injury, compensation is paid substantially on account of the fact that the suffering would remain for rest of the life crippling the normal activity. Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal has taken into account the various aspects, including lack of proper care on the part of the appellant and that no interference is warranted. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and two Doctors, who treated him, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. The documentary evidence, comprised of the record in criminal case instituted by the police, being Exs.A.1 to A.3, the record pertaining to treatment and discharge and the proceedings of removal from service being Exs.A.4 to A.13. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence whatever was adduced. The Tribunal framed two issues; one touching upon the liability for the accident and the other, as to the quantum. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw. The said finding is not challenged by the appellant. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- for loss of earnings and Rs.1,00,000/- for the disability due to amputation, in all, Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant was aged 35 years, when the accident occurred. The pay slip marked as Ex.A.7 discloses that he was drawing salary of Rs.5,700/- per month. If his net salary is taken roughly at Rs.5,000/- per month, that would yield the annual income of Rs.60,000/-. Though the multiplier applicable, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited [1] would be ‘15’, having regard to the fact that the appellant is compensated by the employer also, multiplier ‘12’ can be chosen. A lumpsum of Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenditure, pain and suffering and extra nourishment can be awarded. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 17.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3750 of 2003 Date: 17.11.2011 JSU [1] 2009 (6) SCC 1201