THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 239 of 2003 JUDGMENT Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 17.10.2002 in M.V.O.P.No. 653 of 2001 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, the present C.M.A. is filed urging that the lower Court not considered the evidence of P.W-2 regarding the 30% disability of the injured and also the tribunal erred in fixing the income of the injured as unskilled labourer, though he is having 50 acres of land and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Now the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Court is sustainable? The injured filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 25.6.1999. The lower Court found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle belongs to 1st respondent, which was validly insured with the 2nd respondent on the date of the accident. For assessment of compensation in injury claims, the age of the claimant, multiplier applicable to the case, earning capacity of the injured and percentage of the disability are the relevant factors. The injured himself was examined as P.W-1 and examined P.W-2, the doctor who issued Ex.A-5 certificate. P.W-1 Dr. C. Prabhakar Reddy, in his evidence admitted that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 25.6.1999 and as per his observations, the injured sustained multiple fractures and haemothorax and he was treated with intercostals and conservatory which leads to respiratory tract infections and assessed the disability of the injured between 25% to 30%. The learned judge assessed the disability at 10% on the ground that the injured failed to produce the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Ex.A-3 wound certificate which reads the grievous injuries sustained by P.W-1. The age of the injured is 36 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the above said age as relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS[1] is 15. Therefore, while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-2, coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A-5, the disability can be safely fixed at 20% instead of 10% as held in the impugned order. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner under the head of loss of future earnings due to permanent disability comes to Rs. 45,000/ (15x15,000x20/100). Thus, the total amount of Rs. 45,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of loss of future earnings due to permanent disability. The petitioner also claimed an amount of Rs. 14,000/- towards the pain and suffering. But, the lower Court granted only Rs. 5,000/-. As seen from the Ex.A-3 wound certificate, the petitioner sustained multiple fractures. Therefore, awarding of Rs. 10,000/- towards the pain and suffering is just and reasonable against the amount of Rs. 5,000/-granted in the lower Court. Originally, the lower Court in total granted a compensation of Rs. 52,000/- under all heads. In view of my foregoing observations, an amount of Rs. 45,000/- granted under the head loss of future earnings due to permanent disability, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, while confirming the compensation awarded by the lower Court under the heads of medical expenses (Rs. 15,000/-), extra-nourishment charges (Rs. 4,000/- ), Transportation Charges (Rs. 1,000/-) and loss of earnings from the date of the accident till the date of discharge from hospital (Rs. 3,000/-) in total Rs. 78,000/- against the amount of Rs. 52,000/- granted by the lower Court. Thus the claim is enhanced from Rs. 52,000/- as granted by the lower Court to a sum of Rs.78,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the tribunal till realization. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 4.3.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121