THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No.3280 of 2005 ORDER: This appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1783 of 1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant herein/claimant for Rs.5,50,000/- for the injuries received by him was allowed partly by awarding a compensation of Rs.3,97,200/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till realization. The claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.1996, the claimant, a labourer, along with another labourer – Laxman, were engaged for loading and unloading the cement and bricks on the lorry bearing No.AP 9T 166 owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, and they were proceeding on the lorry from Uppal to L.B. nagar and by the time the lorry reached near Rajiv Gandhi bus stop, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the road divider, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries of fracture of right leg, left knee and other injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B. nagar by police who registered a case in Crime No.443 of 1996 under Section 337 I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry. An operation was performed on him and he was admitted as an inpatient for 46 days, his left hand was amputated and was discharged on 01.10.1996. Thereafter he took private treatment. He spent huge amount towards medicines and hospital charges etc. As a result of amputation of his left arm, he became totally disabled, unable to attend his duties as a labourer and lost his future earning capacity. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the injuries received by him. The first respondent - owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. To prove his claim, the claimant examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 i.e., certified copies of F.I.R., case diary, wound certificate, charge sheet, treatment certificate, disability certificate, series of medical bills, photograph of the claimant and copy of insurance policy. The insurance company examined no witness, however, marked Exs.B-1 insurance policy. Exs.C-1 and C-2 – case sheet and x-ray film of left ankle were also marked through witnesses. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant and that first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle and that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to which the claimant is entitled to receive. The Tribunal, considering the case law, awarded Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the claimant was a labourer, the Tribunal took his monthly income at Rs.2,000/- and as he was aged 24 years of age, it took the multiplier ‘16’. Accordingly, loss of income was calculated at Rs.3,84,000/- (24000 x 16) and as regards the disability, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, taken it at 80% and the loss of income to which the claimant is entitled to receive was calculated at Rs.3,07,200/-. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,97,200/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier 16 and that since the claimant was aged 24 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is ‘18’. The learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier ‘16’ instead of appropriate multiplier ‘18’ since the deceased was aged 24 years. Accordingly, the loss of income is calculated at Rs.4,32,000/- (24000 X 18) and as per the evidence, disability can be assessed at 80% as was assessed by the Tribunal and 80% of the loss of income comes to Rs.3,45,600/- and the amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony as awarded by the Tribunal shall remain as it is. Then, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,20,600/-. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,97,200/- to Rs.4,20,600/- which shall carry interest at 7% per annum. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487