THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1599 of 2005 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed O.P.No.1944 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under E.C.Act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 14.07.2001 at about 6.30 PM due to dashing of Maruthi Van bearing No.AP-12B- 2339 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. By the award impugned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,000/-with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards 30% permanent disability sustained by the claimant as per Ex.A8- Disability Certificate issued by P.W.2-Orthopedic Surgeon. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges etc., and it awarded less compensation. He submitted that due to insertion of rod in his thigh, the movements of right hip and right knee are restricted and he is unable to do his vegetable business. Thus, he seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. P.W.2-Orthopaedic Surgeon stated in his evidence that after examining P.W.1-claimant, he found that a steel rod was implanted in his thigh and as such, he was suffering from restricted movements of right hip and right knee and he cannot squat or walk to a distance. He stated that the claimant sustained 30% disability and he issued Ex.A8- disability certificate. Because of the said disability, the claimant is unable to do his vegetable business as was done prior to the accident. But the said disability is not permanent in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the view that 25% disability can be taken to assess his future loss of earnings. The appellant stated that he was aged 30 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month by doing vegetable business at the time of the accident. Since the accident occurred in 2001, it would be appropriate to assess his monthly income at Rs.2,500/-per month and annually at Rs.30,000/- out of which, 25% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards the disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.7,500/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 30 years is ‘17’, and thereby, the compensation towards disability comes to Rs.7,500X17=1,27,500/. Since the claim of the petitioner is Rs.1,00,000/-, the said amount is restricted to the claim amount. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.31,000/- to Rs.1,00,000 /-. The order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 4. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.02.2011 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121