THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2473 of 2006 and Cross Objections (SR). No. 5742 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2006 passed in O.P. No. 429 of 2001 by the Chairman, I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and needs to be reduced, while the claimant preferred cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation. Respondent No.1 in the appeal, who is the cross-objector, filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the appellant-insurance company and respondent No.2-owner of the crime lorry, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 15.11.2000. It was his case that on 15.11.2000, he was going towards Varni from Nizamabad, on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 25F 2334, and when he reached Kothapet Village at about 2.00 p.m., the lorry bearing No. AP 16T 578 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came in the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and the front wheel of the lorry ran over both his legs, resulting in severe injuries to his legs and stomach. He was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was operated twice, his left leg was amputated up to the thigh and rod was inserted in the right leg. From there, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for further treatment. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- and he sustained 100% permanent disability due to the accident and his motorcycle was also damaged. He claimed to be aged 30 years and working as Extension Officer and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month besides allowances of Rs.3,000/- per month, at the time of the accident. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from respondent No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant-insurance company. The appellant filed written statement resisting the claim of the claimants, while respondent No.2- owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A20 on his behalf, while no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant, but Ex.B1 policy was marked. The Tribunal, having framed the issues and having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and that respondent No.2 being the owner of the crime lorry is vicariously liable for the act of his driver and the appellant-insurance company being the insurer of the crime lorry is bound to indemnify the liability of respondent No.2. The Tribunal, having fixed the permanent disability sustained by the deceased at 100%, arrived at the annual income of the claimant at Rs.1,16,832/-, based on Ex.A5 salary certificate of the deceased, and computed the loss of earnings by applying multiplier ‘17’, and by adding the amounts under other heads such as pain and suffering, affixture of artificial leg, medical and extra nourishment and transport expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,20,000/- to the claimant-injured, payable by the appellant, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, and accordingly allowed the petition in part with proportionate costs. The counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], is ‘16’ and the rate of interest shall also be reduced to 6%, which was admitted to by the counsel appearing for the claimant- cross-objector. Thus, both of them agreed to dispose of the appeal and cross-objections, with necessary modifications in that regard. In view of the same, we take the multiplicand as arrived at by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1,16,832/-, as per Ex.A5 salary certificate of the claimant. If the same is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier ‘16’, the loss of earning capacity of the claimant would come to Rs.18,69,312/-. The other amounts granted by the Tribunal viz., Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,08,305/- towards artificial leg, Rs.90,471/- towards medical and extra nourishment and Rs.4,260/- towards transport expenses, being not disputed, need not be disturbed. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled, comes to Rs.22,02,348/-. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma case, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the cross- objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 4th August, 2011 IBL [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104