THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3518 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 17.04.2003, passed in O.P.No.958 of 2000 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On 10.05.2000, at about 11.30 p.m., the appellant and his friend Md.Javed were standing near Royal Wines Chowrastha as his scooter was out of order and that time, a stirring auto bearing Registration No.AP11V 2111 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant and his friend, as a result of which, both of them sustained injuries and immediately, they were taken to Gandhi Hospital. It is stated that the appellant is a Plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. He therefore, filed the present O.P., claiming compensation ofRs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The first respondent, being the owner of the auto, remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations and contending that the compensation claimed is high and excessive. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,500/- to the appellant-claimant. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Judge failed to consider the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, with regard to the disability sustained by the appellant, resulting in granting meager compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the appellant claims to be working as a Plumber and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Though there is no evidence to show that he was earning that much amount, taking into consideration the age of the appellant and in the interests of justice, I deem it appropriate to take Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the claimant for calculating his loss of earnings. Though the appellant pleaded that he sustained 30% disability, the learned Judge disbelieved the same on the ground that P.W.2, is not the actual doctor, who treated him. Admittedly, when Ex.A11-disability certificate has been issued by P.W.2, who is a qualified and competent medical practitioner, the learned Judge ought not to have disbelieved the same. In the circumstances, the monthly income of the appellant is taken at Rs.3,000/- and taking into consideration the disability sustained by him as per Ex.A11, his monthly loss of earnings would come to Rs.900/- (Rs.3,000/- x 30%) and Rs.10,800/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the appellant is ‘15’, thereby his loss of earnings would come to Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.10,800 x 15). Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- towards compensation. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121