THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2014 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant, who is a Deputy Range Officer, Forest Department, was going on Bajaj Boxer bearing No.AP 23C 9645, on 17.05.2003, from Kamareddy to Anthampally and at about 6.00 AM when he reached near Golden Family Daba, a borewell lorry bearing No.AP 28E 2233 was proceeded ahead of him in high speed and as the driver applied sudden breaks without any indication, he hit the lorry from behind, due to which, he sustained multiple fractures and his vehicle was completely damaged. He filed O.P.No.2845 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case- cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderbad, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The application was opposed by the second respondent-insurer of the crime vehicle. Through its award, dated 10.10.2005, the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.3,80,630/-. For enhancement of the said compensation, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Court below ought to have taken the gross salary of the claimant while assessing the compensation for loss of earnings. He further contended that the Court below failed to consider the medical bills produced by the claimant and granted less compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurer contended that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2-doctor, who deposed only based on the original case sheet of the claimant. He further contended that the claimant has not examined any witness to prove Exs.A4 and A5-medical bills and that as he reimbursed the amount spent towards medical expenses from the Government, the same may be reduced. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is merit less inasmuch PW2 has clearly and categorically deposed that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 17.05.2003 with several fractures and that an operation was also conducted on him. He stated that Exs.A4 and A5-medical bills were issued by NIMS and other corresponding departments and that Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Gandhi Hospital stating that the claimant sustained 25% disability due to fracture of shaft and femur and fracture of upper end of tibia left. The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed vide judgment, dated 08.07.2010 in MACMA No.577 of 2006. The Court below, taking into consideration the evidence and the relevant documents filed by the claimant, has taken the gross salary of Rs.9,302/-per month and annual income comes to Rs.1,11,624/-. As the age of the claimant was 56 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as p e r SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘9’. Then, the compensation towards loss of earnings comes to Rs.1,11,624X9=10,04,616/-. Since the claimant had sustained 25% disability as per Ex.A10-disability certificate, the compensation towards permanent disability comes to Rs.2,51,154/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, physiotherapy and attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, extra nourishment and towards loss of earnings, which quantified at Rs.1,57,382/- shall remain unaltered and it should be added to the amount of Rs.2,51,154/-. Thus, the total compensation is determined at Rs.4,08,536/-and the same is awarded to the claimant. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:08.07.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121