THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.377 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award dated 07-12-2005 in O.P. No.1381 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner as against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, he preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under: On 15-03-2003 at about 12-00 noon, while the petitioner was going on his Rajdooth Motorcycle bearing No.ATX 8847, at just opposite to Ramgopalpet Police Station, the LML Vespa bearing No.AP10 – E – 8361 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner’s motorcycle, as a result, petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted in Gandhi Hospital. On report, the police of Ramgopalpet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2003 against the driver of LML Vespa and investigated into. Due to the accident, petitioner also suffered shock and pain and spent huge amount for treatment and also lost his job. Hence, the petitioner filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner of the LML Vespa and its insurer – United India Insurance Company Limited respectively. 3. Respondent No.1, owner of the LML Vespa involved in the accident, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Ltd., which is insurer of the LML Vespa, alone filed its counter denying the case of the petitioner. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the learned Judge: 1) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. To substantiate his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1, the doctor who treated him as PW.2 and an engineer of Bharathi Enterprises as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of respondent No.2, except marking a copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex.B-1 no oral evidence was adduced. 6. The learned Judge after evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the LML Vespa and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, petitioner preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner. However, there is no representation for the respondents in spite of the matter being listed under the caption “for orders”. Hence, the matter is being disposed of on merits. 8. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner is that the learned Judge has not considered the entire material available on record. The learned Judge did not consider Ex.A-11, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, the testimony of the medical witness – PW.2 and that the injured had suffered 40% of disability, while granting compensation. Further, though the petitioner claimed compensation under various heads, the learned Judge failed to consider the same and even no amount was awarded towards medical expenses. Hence, he contends that the total compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the learned Judge is too low, as such, the same may be enhanced. 9. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge to the petitioner is inadequate? POINT: 10. The learned Judge observing that the petitioner has sustained fracture of left tibia and was treated in the Government Hospital viz., Gandhi Hospital as evident from Exs.A-4 and A-10 discharge card and x-rays with report and that Ex.A-7 medical bills relied upon by the petitioner are not covered by the prescriptions made by the Government Hospital and the Doctor who prescribed those medicines was not examined, held that there is no material to show that the petitioner has incurred any expenses for medicines or treatment. Thus, the learned Judge considering the fact that the petitioner sustained fracture of tibia, awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards fracture, Rs.10,000/- towards shock, pain and loss of amenities of life and in spite of observing that there is no material showing expenditure for purchase of medicines or treatment, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses, totalling to Rs.45,000/-. 11. However, the learned Judge holding that though the Medical Board of Gandhi Hospital issued a disability certificate in respect of physically handicapped candidates stating that the disability suffered by the petitioner is 40% of the knee joint moment, since there is no authentic material to show that he was working with Bharathi Enterprises, where he claims to be working, the petitioner had not sustained any loss of earnings during the treatment period and also loss of future earnings, did not award any amount under those heads. 12. But, as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short “MV Act”), Rs.15,000/- per annum has to be taken towards notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident. 13. In the case on hand, as rightly held by the learned Judge, the petitioner failed to establish that he was working with Bharathi Enterprises and he sustained loss of earnings during the treatment period, so also the future earnings. But, since Ex.A-11 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Gandhi Hospital in respect of Physically Handicapped Candidates shows that the petitioner suffered disability of 40% of the knee joint moment, he is entitled to loss of future earnings power and he is not entitled to any compensation for loss of income during the treatment period since he was not proved to be working before the accident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that notional income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum for compensation as per the Second Schedule of the MV Act for computing loss of future earnings power since it is proved that the petitioner was not working prior to the accident. As per the cause title of the claim petition made by the petitioner, he was 43 years old as on the date of the claim petition and there is no other authentic material showing his actual age. Hence, the age of the petitioner is considered as 43 years as on the date of the accident. For the age group of the petitioner, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the appropriate multiplier is “14”. Accordingly, if the annual notional income of the petitioner i.e. Rs.15,000/- is capitalized with the appropriate multiplier “14”, it comes to Rs.2,10,000/- and out of that 40% of the amount comes to Rs.84,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand only) towards the disability of 40% of the knee joint moment and the same is accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the learned Judge to the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.1,29,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty nine thousand only). The petitioner is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. The point is accordingly answered. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:08-08-2011. PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121