THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2328 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 20.07.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2004 by the Special Judge for SC ST (POA) At-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool- cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 2. The said O.P was filed by the claimant/appellant herein seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.07.2003. As against the claim of Rs.1,25,000/-, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.70,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute as to the nature and date of the accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident. To prove the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W-1 and another witness as PW.2 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents Ex.X-1 was marked. The Tribunal on evidence held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and the said finding warrants no interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W-2 who is Medical Officer stated to be working in Viswabharathi Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant are spoken to by P.W-2. According to P.W-2, the claimant underwent operations to her left leg by inserting plates and screws. The claimant had sustained two grievous injuries one is fracture of left knee and fracture of 4,5,6 ribs swelling of left knee as per Ex.A.2- wound certificate and all the injuries are grievous in nature. The disability assessed by the doctor is 30% but the Tribunal observed that the disability fixed by P.W-2 was without seeing the case sheet of the claimant. The fact remains that she could not regain normal movements of left leg but it became weak and it is shortened. Due to injuries in the chest she is also suffering breathing problem therefore cannot do agriculture and house hold works. In facts and circumstances of the case, the disability can be therefore fixed at 30% considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. It has come in evidence that as on date of the accident that the claimant was aged 48 years and she was doing agriculture work besides doing her house hold work. Since there is no positive evidence to prove the income, her income can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.36,000/- (3,000 x 12). As the claimant sustained 30% disability, and if applied the amount comes to Rs.10,800/- (36,000 x 30%). Appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision of the Hon’be Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘13’, when applied, the amount comes to Rs.1,40,400/- (10,800 x 13). However, the claim is made for compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and the compensation now is arrived at is restricted to Rs.1,25,000/- with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. In the result, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 03, 2011 SP/KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2328 of 2006 March 03, 2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129