HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :4393 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 6th August, 2003 in M.V.O.P. No.117 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa. The appellant-injured claimant fled the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 1.5.2000 while he was returning to the garden along with his wife from Mariyapuram in an auto bearing registration No. AP 04 T 8456 belonging to the 1st respondent, who is owner-cum-driver and who was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, hit a cart which was going in front of the auto, as a result, the appellant and another were thrown out and the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Kadapa where he underwent treatment as in patient. Thereafter, he is said to have taken treatment at Puttur Bone Setting Centre, Puttur and incurred an expenditure. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant, who was aged about 42 years was working as Watchman and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum- driver of the auto filed written statement stating that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. It is further stated that since the auto in question is insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company, the liability has to be fastened on the 2nd respondent-insurance company. While opposing the O.P., the 2nd respondent-insurance company also filed counter affidavit stating that the auto was being driven by the 1st respondent at a very low speed and since darkness shrouded all over the area on account of rain at the relevant point of time, there is no possibility for the 1st respondent to drive the auto in a rash and negligent manner. It also pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 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 auto bearing No. AP 04 T 8456 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 its case, the appellant examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant has contended that the Tribunal, having found that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, was not justified in awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,000/- when the claim was much more. He further contended that even though he filed Ex.A4, disability certificate to prove that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 55%, the Tribunal did not consider the same. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has properly assessed the claim for compensation and the same needs no interference. It is the evidence of the injured claimant, who himself got examined as P.W.1, that on 1.5.2000 at 11.15 p.m., while he was returning to the garden along with his wife in an auto belonging to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit a cart which was going in front of the auto. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kadapa. He also filed Exs. A1 and A3, which are the copies of FIR and Charge Sheet respectively, to prove the occurrence of the accident. In the instant case, even though the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the auto involved in the accident, filed written statement denying the negligence, however, for the reasons best known to him, he did not get himself examined before the Tribunal. In the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents, the occurrence of the accident cannot be disputed and the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. The appellant also examined P.W.2, a member of the Medical Board, District Head Quarters Hospital, Kadapa, to show that he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 55%. P.W.2 also issued Ex.A4, disability certificate. In view of the fact that P.W.2 is a competent and qualified doctor of a Government Hospital and 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 only Rs.60,000/ as lumpsum compensation, which is quite incorrect. In the instant case, since the appellant has been working as Watchman, the notional income of the injured claimant can be taken as Rs.2000/-per month instead of Rs.1500/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 55%, while taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.24,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 13,200/- (24000 x 55%). 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 ‘13’. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier of 13, the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.1,71,600/-. (Rs. 13200 x 13) The appellant is thus entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,71,600/- instead of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation, The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129