HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA. NO. 2369 OF 2005 And MACMA NO. 1322 of 2011 JUDGMENT: MACMA No.2369 of 2005 is filed by the claimants whereas MACMA (SR) No.48911 of 2005 is filed by the insurance company against the same award dated 29.06.2005 passed in O.P.No.565 of 2003 by the III Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Cuddapah. 2. Facts stated are:- The O.P was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident that occurred on 04-04-2003 at about 05.30 A.M involving a jeep bearing No. AP04-U-4338 when she was brooming waste in front of her house situated near Sarada School on Muddanur Pulivendula main road. It was the case of the claimant that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, the driver without blowing horn dashed against the petitioner and dragged her to a distance of 15 yards, as a result of which she sustained injuries. To prove her claim, the claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents Ex.A1 to A30. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R, Ex.A2 is certified copy of the Wound Certificate and Ex.A3 is the charge sheet. The doctor was examined as PW.3 and got marked documents ExsA-29 and A- 30-X-ray and disability certificate. According to PW.3, the applicant received 40% disability and four injuries. 3. To substantiate their claim, the respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle got examined as R.1 and admitted the accident. He denied the manner of accident and submitted that the accident occurred when the applicant suddenly came on to the road without observing vehicular traffic and also submitted that the driver of the vehicle is also having valid driving license at the time of accident, hence the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the compensation. 4. Further, the 2nd respondent alleged that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the jeep and the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant who was sweeping in a drowsy condition and did not hear the horn blown by the driver of the jeep and as a result, came into contact with the vehicle and sustained injuries. It is also his contention that the claimant received simple injuries and hence no permanent disability. 5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of the claimant and also exhibits, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The Tribunal also stated that according to Exs.A.2 and Ex.30-wound certificate the claimant had sustained four injuries and 40% disability and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the claimant and another appeal by the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal on adjudication of the matter, rightly came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and the same needs no interference by this Court. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate? 7. The claimant was a coolie aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.2,400/- per month. There is no authentic evidence with regard to her profession or income. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondents, the income of the claimant can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs.24,000/- (2,000/- x 12). 40% disability comes to Rs.9,600/- (Rs.24,000/- x 40%). As per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 35 years is ‘16’ and accordingly the compensation comes to Rs.1,53,600/- (Rs.9,600/- x 16). In addition, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering. Hence, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,91,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J February 03, 2011 SP/KK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA. NO. 2369 OF 2005 And MACMA NO. 1322 of 2011 February 03, 2011 SP/KK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121