HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.M.A.No.5 of 2005 ORDER: This miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Addl. Chief Judge (MACT), Hyderabad in O.P.No.1462 of 2001 dated 22.9.2004. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the O.P. On 1.4.2001 while she was standing at bus stop at Suraram cross road at 9-30 a.m. waiting for a bus, lorry bearing No.ADW 3614 hit her and another person by name Bala Venkanna as a result of which the petitioner suffered fracture in both the bones of her left leg and other injuries. She underwent hospitalization and surgery. The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving. On the compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had not spent any amount towards medical expenses while she was taking treatment in Gandhi Hospital; she must have spent around Rs.5000/- for her medical expenses and attendant charges and extra-nourishment, as she stated that she was working as labourer and earning Rs.2000/- per month and as there was no other evidence to prove her monthly income, the monthly income should be taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum; and to this sum at 40% disability and on applying 18 as the multiplier, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled for compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- towards disability suffered by her. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-. The said amount was directed to be paid with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment. Sri M.Krishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal had erred in taking the petitioner’s annual income as Rs.15000/-, more so, when she had deposed that she was working as a labourer earning Rs.2000/- per month; a labourer working in Hyderabad would earn much more than Rs.2000/- per month; even in case of housewives, and in the case of unskilled labourers, the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar[1] and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar[2] had held that a sum of Rs.3000/- was a reasonable figure and, in such circumstances, the petitioner’s claim of earning Rs.2000/- per month deserved acceptance. Sri T.Ramulu, Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier at 18 instead of 17; that the appellant had suffered 40% disability was also erroneous, and that an annual income of Rs.15000/-, when there was no evidence of earning a higher amount, was justified. It is necessary to note that the Insurance company has not chosen to prefer an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellants suffered 40% disability or the applicable multiplier is 18. The only question which necessitates examination is as to whether the annual income of the petitioner should be taken at Rs.24000/- (2000 x 12) or Rs.15000/- as applied by the Tribunal. In Lata Wadhwa1, which was a case of housewives of officers of a big company i.e., Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., the Supreme Court held that services rendered by housewives to the entire family necessitated their income to be treated as Rs.3000/- per month. I n Laxmi Devi2, the Supreme Court held that Rs.100/- per day as the earnings of an unskilled labourer was appropriate. In the case on hand, the appellant claimed to be earning Rs.2000/- per month. It is not in dispute that she was residing adjacent to Hyderabad city at the time of the accident. The monthly income claimed by her of Rs.2000/- per month is less than approximately Rs.67/- per day. Even in the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, I am of the view that the petitioner’s claim of earning Rs.2000/- per month as an unskilled labourer is not exorbitant and is just. Applying the multiplier of 18 and 40% disability, as has been applied by the Tribunal, to the monthly income of Rs.2000/-, the appellant herein would be entitled for an enhancement of compensation of Rs.64,800/- which can be rounded up to Rs.65,000/- The appeal is allowed and the appellant is held entitled, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, for a further sum of Rs.65,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of repayment. ________ 2-9-2010 asp [1] (2001)8 SCC 197 [2] AIR 2008 SC 1858