THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.688 of 2007 Date:24.02.2010 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. ..... APPELLANT AND Katkam Laxman and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following Order: ORDER: This M.A.C.M.A. arises out of award dated 04.08.2006 in O.P.No.318 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘Tribunal). Respondent No.2 in the O.P. (for short ‘A.P.S.R.T.C.’) is the appellant in this appeal. On 07.08.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., respondent No.1 herein (for short ‘claimant’), when he was travelling along with his wife on his Hero Honda motorcycle, met with an accident involving the bus belonging to the A.P.S.R.T.C. A crime, vide Crime No.117 of 2004 was registered in Vemulawada Police Station against respondent No.2, driver of the bus. As the claimant sustained multiple injuries, which required his hospitalization and surgeries, he filed the above mentioned O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation under Section 166(1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). In support of his claim that he suffered grievous injuries and spent huge amounts towards expenses, the claimant not only examined himself but also examined P.Ws.2 to 5, the Doctors who have treated him. The claimant also filed Exs.A-1 to A-12. Exs.C-1 to C-4 – C.T. Scan, X-ray films etc., were marked through the Doctors examined as witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal has given finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. The Tribunal has assessed Rs.2,93,700/- as the total compensation payable to the claimant under various heads which are as under: ”1. Loss of earning power Rs.1,02,000/- 2. Loss of income Rs. 7,500/- 3. Medical expenditure including the surgery charges and purchase of medicines Rs.1,44,194/- 4. Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 6. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.2,93,649/- Rounded to Rs.2,93,700/-“ Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant – A.P.S.R.T.C. No one appeared for the respondents. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., confined his submissions to the aspect of assessment of compensation. The learned counsel disputed awarding of Rs.1,02,000/- towards loss of earning power (loss of future income) and Rs.1,44,194/- towards medical expenses. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel advanced in this respect. With regard to the award pertaining to loss of future income, the claimant was aged 33 years and according to him he was doing business in the name and style of Maheshwari Steel Merchant at Vemulawada and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. As no evidence in support of this claim was filed by the claimant, the Tribunal has taken Rs.1,250/- as the monthly income which the claimant would have been earning, by drawing the analogy from the Second Schedule of the Act. The Tribunal has adopted ‘17’ as the multiplier. In my opinion, selection of both the multiplier and multiplicand by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and realistic. Even in the absence of evidence, the claimant being young and aged only 33 years and who underwent several surgeries by spending his own money is expected to be earning a decent income. Indeed, the assessment of Rs.1,250/- per month is very conservative and, if at all the claimant should have a grievance on this aspect. As far as multiplier ‘17’ is concerned, this figure may slightly vary with the multiplier adopted by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. Considering the fact that the decision in Sarla Verma was not in existence when the O.P. was decided and the further fact that the Tribunal has estimated a very modest income, I am not inclined to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. With regard to the award pertaining to medical expenditure including surgery charges and purchase of medicines, the voluminous medical record supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5, the Doctors who conducted surgeries on the claimant and treated him as inpatient in two different nursing homes, establishes beyond any cavil of doubt that the claimant would have spent much more than what was awarded by the Tribunal. The injuries being serious in nature, which include a head injury requiring surgery apart from an extensive pelvic fracture, would have certainly required huge medical expenditure. The intensity of the injuries can be gazed from the testimonies of the surgeons examined as witnesses. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The M.A.C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th February, 2010 GHN [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487