THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2328 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant challenging the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy {“the Tribunal” for brevity} in O.P.No.776 of 1995. The appellant, who was the claimant before the Tribunal, claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.06.1995. Against his claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.53,072/-. The appellant preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. Heard both the sides. According to the appellant, while he was proceeding as a pillion rider on scooter bearing driven by one Venkat Reddy, the Jeep bearing No.ATT 4641, which came in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter, due to which he and the person who was driving the vehicle fell down and received grievous injuries. The factum of accident not being in dispute and not being the matter for consideration in the present appeal, the details of the said aspect need not be adverted to in the present appeal. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it requires any enhancement. The appellant was stated to be aged 24 years on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by running cycle taxi. However, the Tribunal considered his income at Rs.1,200/- per month, which needs no interference in this appeal because there is no documentary proof relating to the income of the injured. P.W.2, the doctor, who issued Ex.A5-disability certificate, stated that the petitioner received fracture of right lower limb, for which he was operated and ultimately, there was shortening of right lower limb, which resulted in disability of 25% to 30%. Ex.A3-wound certificate issued by the authorities of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, also shows that the appellant received injuries spoken to by P.W.2. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.27,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, but did not award any amount for loss of earnings basing on the disability sustained by him. In the opinion of this Court, the manner in which the Tribunal computed the compensation is not correct. The disability, which was sustained by the appellant, certainly results in loss of earnings. Therefore, the loss of earnings have to be calculated basing on the multiplier, which is as under. The monthly income of the appellant is at Rs.1,200/- and hence, his annual income is Rs.1,4,400/- {Rs.1,200/- x 12}. Sine the appellant was aged 24 years on the date of the accident; the relevant multiplier is ‘17’ as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to P.W.2, he sustained permanent disability of 25% to 30%. The loss of earnings, therefore, is Rs.61,200/- {Rs.14,400/- x 25/100 x 17}. That apart, an amount of Rs.10,000/- {Rupees ten thousand only} can be paid towards pain and suffering, which ought to have been granted by the Tribunal. An amount of Rs.26,072/- was granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses basing on the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant, which does not require any interference in this appeal. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to a total compensation of Rs.97,272/- {Rupees ninety seven thousand two hundred and seventy two only} {Rs.61,200/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.26,072/-}, which according to this Court is just and reasonable. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.44,200/- {Rupees forty four thousand two hundred only}. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount of Rs.44,200/-, from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 5th December 2009 RRB