HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No.2412 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in MVOP.No.1795 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional MSJ Redhills, Nampally, Hyderabad, dated 02.08.2006. While the appellant-injured was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP-28S-6769 to attend his duties at Bommalaramram on 03.05.2003, a military truck belonging to the respondents driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter of the injured from behind. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered fractures to his right leg, subluxation of right patella, crush injury and loss of skin and muscles of both his thighs with gross haemotoma and other injuries all over the body. At that time, the appellant was aged 36 years and was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Nagonda District, drawing a salary of Rs,15,000/- p.m. He claimed a compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability suffered by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant- injured contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. He further contended that the observation of the Tribunal that, as PW.2, the doctor, did not treat the injured, assessment of percentage of disability basing on old records, was without basis. He further contended that though 50% permanent disability was suffered by the injured, a very meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards compensation, including pain and suffering and other incidental expenses. He, therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned award. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW.1, coupled with Exs.A.1-First Information Report A.2-Charge sheet, concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the military truck of the respondents. In the application before the Tribunal, the appellant stated that he was treated as inpatient in the Geetha Nursing Home from 03.05.2003 to 09.05.2003 and ever since his discharge, he has been continuously undergoing treatment and had stated that skin grafting was done and operations were conducted for K- wire fixation for subluxation of right patella. P.W.2, the doctor, who examined the appellant, assessed the permanent disability at 50% and issued Ex.P.15, disability certificate. According to him, the injured suffered an old crush injury on both his thighs with subluxation of right patella. He also stated that pain in his right knee would increase, difficulty in flexing both knees beyond 90 degrees, loss of sensation below both the thighs, difficulty in squatting, walking, climbing etc. The Tribunal relying solely on the ground that the injured was not treated by PW.2, who issued the disability certificate, awarded meagre compensation. The Tribunal, however, keeping in view the fact that the injured suffered permanent disability ought to have awarded reasonable compensation. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in granting a very meagre compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant. According to Ex.P.15, disability certificate, issued by PW.2, the injured sustained 50% permanent disability. However, it has to be taken note of that PW.2 was not the doctor who treated the injured. PW.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that he was attending to his duties regularly. Ends of justice would be met if the disability sustained by the injured is taken at 30%. While taking the average monthly earnings of the injured at Rs.13,000/- p.m., his annual earning would come to Rs. 1,56,000/- and the loss of income is estimated at Rs.46,800/- annually.(Rs.1,56,000/- x 30%). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the injured is ‘15’. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of ‘15’, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.7,02,000/- (Rs. 46,800/- x 15). Since the compensation itself exceeded the claim of Rs.4.00 lakhs sought for by the injured, he is not entitled to any other amounts and the compensation is restricted to the amount of claim. Thus, the injured is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date:31.03.2011 usd [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129