HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :1064 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 8.12.2005 in O.P. No. 3035 of 2003 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant is the injured claimant. According to the appellant, on 5.10.2003 at about 6.00 p.m, while the appellant along with some others was proceeding in an auto bearing No AP 1 U 5627 from Srirampur towards Godavari Khani and when they reached Godavari Bridge Indaram, a jeep bearing No AP 15 V 1168 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto. As a consequence, the appellant and others sustained injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Medbone Hospital. According to the appellant, he sustained fractures to bones of both his legs besides sustaining some other fractures. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Before the Court below, the 1st respondent was set ex-parte. While opposing the O.P., the 2nd respondent filed its counter denying rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and pleaded that the driver of the jeep was not having valid licence. It also disputed the age and income of the appellant. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 15 V 1168 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2. He also got marked Exs. A1 to A7 on his behalf. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs. 1,04,436/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant filed the present appeal. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the appellant stated that he was working as a labourer and was earning an amount of Rs. 3,195/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs.1250/- per month. He further submitted that even though the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 15%, the Tribunal has only taken 10%. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, supported the impugned order and stated that the impugned order does not require any interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident. The only dispute is with regard to granting of compensation amount. The appellant, in order to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, examined P.W.2, the doctor, who treated him. It is the evidence of the doctor that the appellant sustained fractures to his both legs and had also undergone two surgeries. He further stated that the appellant sustained disability to an extent of 10 to 15% by virtue of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. In the instant case, since respondent No.2 did not file any contra evidence to disprove the same, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 15%. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, according to the appellant, he was working as a labourer and was earning about Rs. 3,195/ per month. He also filed Ex. A6 to prove the same. However, as Ex.A6 did not disclose the period for which it was issued, the same was not relied upon by the Court below. However, I feel it appropriate to fix the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36000/- annually. Taking into account the fact that the appellant sustained 15% disability, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.5400/-. (Rs.36000x15%). In so far as multiplier is concerned, since the appellant was aged about 48 years as on the date of the accident, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON & OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the appellant is 13. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of disability can be assessed at Rs.70,200/- (Rs. 5,400/- x 13) instead of Rs.22,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.25,000/-towards two fractures; Rs.10,000/- removal of implants; Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant is also entitled to Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs. 34,930/- (Rs. 25,500/- and Rs.9,436/-) as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is thus entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is granted an amount of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.1,04,436/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE:31st March, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129