THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.4723 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the respondent- insurance company against the order and decree, dated 17.08.2004 passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.2597/2002. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: According to the petitioner-claimant, on 14.11.2002, while he was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 13C 8497 along with his cousin from Gowrishanker Nagar to Masabtank, a maruthi car bearing No.AP 9W 5717 came from backside in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, due to which they fell down and received injuries. The accident took place only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car. He took treatment in Care Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs, contending that he was working as Goldsmith earning Rs.3,000/- per month, received head injury and fractures of scalp and other injuries on right hand and right knee and left ankle and he spent substantial amount for treatment. 4. Second respondent – Insurance company filed counter and on the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. Out of which, Ex.A1 is copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is charge sheet, Ex.A3 is the injury certificate given by Care Hospital, Ex.A4 is Discharge Summary, Exs.A5 to A7 are also material relating to treatment, Ex.A8 is disability certificate, Ex.A9 is salary certificate of the petitioner, Ex.A10 medical bills, Ex.A11 is photographs and negatives and Ex.A12 is the case sheet maintained by Care Hospital for the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked. Considering the material on record, the Court below granted total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-towards loss of future earnings, pain and suffering etc., holding that respondents 1 and 2 are liable. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- appellant – insurance company is that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- granted towards loss of future earnings is on higher side and the Tribunal granted the compensation without applying the multiplier method. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that as the claimant lost his income for substantial period and he spent huge amount towards treatment, the compensation awarded is on lower side. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 8. The facts are not at all in dispute. There is no dispute about the petitioner-appellant suffering injuries in a road accident caused by a car. 9. The claimant suffered memory disturbances and speech disturbances and hearing problem on right side and P.W.3, neuro surgeon, who examined the claimant opined that the disability is 15% to 20% only. Though there is no authentic material with regard to his income, as the claim is Rs.3000/- per month, even if he is treated as a labourer earning Rs.50/- a day also, his income can be put at Rs.1500/- per month and the petitioner was very young at the time of accident, we have to consider his loss of future earnings also. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the tribunal though mentioned the age of the petitioner as ‘23’, it has not mentioned any where with regard to the appropriate multiplier. In view of the fact that the petitioner was aged 23 years only as on the date of accident and he sustained injuries and lost his memory and hearing capacity, the tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- by considering the above aspects. 10. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal awarded 9% on the entire compensation. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not intend to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, the said compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal. 12. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. As it is a case of injuries and the claimant is said to be in need of money, and more than six years has already elapsed, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded in the O.P. as and when deposited. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14th September 2010, Rns