THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4618 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant-claimant against the order, dated 18.08.2004, passed in O.P.No.1022 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 06.01.2001 at about 11.30 PM, while the claimant was travelling on a lorry bearing No.ATT 2900 with a machine used for sinking the bore wells as Helper of its operation, and when it reached near Boadabanda village, its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and the lorry turned turtle, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed O.P.No.1022 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,05,600/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that though the claimant had sustained 70% disability due to amputation his right leg as per Ex.A10-disability certificate issued by P.W3-Doctor, the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability at 60% and it awarded less compensation to the claimant. 4. There is no dispute as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W2-Doctor, who treated the injured claimant, stated that his right leg was amputated below the knee and skin grafting was done. He stated that the claimant also sustained fracture of pelvic bones with collection of blood in the abdomen and he conducted laparotomy and that the percentage of disability is at 60%. P.W.3-an Orthopaedic Surgeon, stated that the claimant had sustained permanent disability at 70% and he issued Ex.A10-disability certificate. He further stated that the claimant is walking with Jaipur leg. Since the claimant is a young boy, aged 18 years, at the time of accident and is walking with Jaipur leg, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 60% and the same cannot be interfered with. Insofar as his monthly income is concerned, since the accident occurred in 2001, he might have earned at least a sum of Rs.2,500/-per month. As such, his monthly income should be taken at Rs.2,500/-per month, out of which, 60% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards the disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.1500/-per month and annually at Rs.18,000/-. Since the age of the claimant was 18 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘18’. Then, the compensation towards 60% disability comes to Rs.18,000X18=3,24,000/-. In addition to it, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering is awarded. In total, the compensation comes to Rs.3,54,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,05,600/- to 3,54,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:21.10.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121