HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :2915 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the order in M.V.O.P. No.503 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Kadapa. It is the case of the appellant that on 20.1.2001, he boarded a jeep bearing No. AP 04 B 4176 belonging to the 1st respondent to go to Vempalli and when the jeep reached Vemula, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the said jeep turned turtle. The appellant and other inmates sustained injuries. They were all shifted to Government Hospital, Pulivendla for treatment. The appellant was working as a driver and had lost his earned leave for two months on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. Hence, the appellant filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent did not choose to file counter and the 2nd respondent-insurance company only filed its counter denying all the material averments. The 2nd respondent averred that the appellant is an unauthorised passenger and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It also pleaded that the injuries sustained by the appellant are simple in nature and that the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, it prayed that the petition be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AP 04 B 4176 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the doctor, who treated him for the injuries sustained by him as P.W.2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent. However, while taking into account the fact that the injuries sustained by the appellant are simple in nature, it awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 9% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. He further contended that even though he filed medical evidence under Exs.A2 and A4 to show that he sustained grievous injuries and also sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25%, the Tribunal failed to take the same into consideration. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned award and stated that the same does not require any interference. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident in question. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. According to the appellant, he sustained grievous injuries. To prove that, he examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2. According to the doctor, P.W.2, who treated the appellant, he sustained a fracture in the accident in question, which is grievous in nature. Even though the appellant filed Ex.A4 to show that he sustained disability to an extent of 25%, the Tribunal did not take the same into consideration. Since, it was issued by a competent and qualified doctor, in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents to disprove Ex.A4, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- as lumpsum compensation. So far as the income and avocation of the appellant is concerned, though the appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that he was working as a driver and earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month, he did not file any material to show that he was earning that much amount, in the absence of which, the income of the appellant can be notionally fixed at Rs.2500/- per month and Rs. 30,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25%, while taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.30,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 7,500/- (30000 x 25%). As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON &OTHERS([1]) the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is ‘15’. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier of 15, the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.1,12,500/-. (Rs. 7500 x 15. Even though the appellant is entitled to an mount of Rs. 1,12,500/- as compensation, since he has only claimed Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal, the compensation amount is restricted to the amount of claim. Thus, the appellant is granted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129