THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4061 of 2004 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 18.08.2004, passed in O.P.No.1160 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under E.C.Act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge (MACT), Hyderabad. 2. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 18.03.2002 at about 9.00 PM near Sub-station, Kolanpaka, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto trolly bearing No.AP-24U-5842. He filed O.P.No.1160 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer, respectively, of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.77,500/-with proportionate costs payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant- claimant filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Court below erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-per annum, which is meager and it awarded less compensation to the claimant. 6. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto trolly at the time of accident. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. P.W.2-Doctor, who issued the disability certificate- Ex.A8, stated in his evidence that after examining the claimant, he noticed two years old mal united compound fractures of right tibia upper 3rd with 1” shortening and that he is facing difficulty in bending his right knee fully and using his right ankle and is unable to sit and squat and to walk for a distance. He stated that the claimant suffered 30% disability. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A8-disability certificate, the Tribunal assessed the disability sustained by the claimant was at 30%. As per the material on record, the claimant was aged 28 years and was working as a milk vendor at the time of accident. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 28 years is ‘17’. Since the accident occurred in 2002, the claimant might have earned at least a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month and annually at Rs.24,000/-. As stated above, the claimant sustained loss of earning capacity at 30% due to disability. If the same is taken from his annual income, it comes to Rs.7,200/- and if it is multiplied with ‘17’, the compensation towards loss of earning capacity of the claimant comes to Rs.7,200X17=1,22,400/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses at Rs.25,000/- and towards pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/- is also added to that amount. In total, a sum of Rs.1,62,400/- is awarded to the claimant towards compensation. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.77,500/- to Rs.1,62,400/-. The order of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:23.09.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121