THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No.942 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 08.01.2008 passed in O.P.No. 381 of 2005 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The said O.P was filed by the claimant/appellant herein seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently the claim was enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.12.2004. As against this claim, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,55,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. 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. The culpability in causing the accident was fixed on the car (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. AP 28 U 7763 in causing the accident which finding in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. To prove the accident, the claimant examined herself as P.W-1 and marked Ex.A-1- copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2-copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.A-3-Discharge Card from the hospital, Ex.A-4- bunch of medical prescriptions, Ex.A-5-bunch of medical bills. One Dr.S.Radha Kishan Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon conducted surgery on the claimant and it has come in the evidence of P.W-2 that a surgery was conducted on the claimant and the fracture on left femur was fixed with nails, the left clavicle fracture was treated by brace application. It has further come in his evidence that due to the injury sustained by the claimant, there was shortening of her left leg, which resulted in her developing limping and unable to sit or squat. However, the said doctor was not examined, but P.W.2- Dr. B.Ramakrishna was examined and his assessment is that the claimant sustained 35% disability. But since Dr. S. Radha Kishan Rao-orthopedic surgeon who treated the claimant was not examined, the disability can be taken at 25% and not 35% as assessed by P.W-2. 5. It has come in the evidence that as on date of the accident, the claimant was aged 23 years and she was an artist in TV serials and feature films and she was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Inasmuch as acting in TV serials and movies is not a regular avocation and it all depends on the opportunities, one gets an average amount of Rs.10,000/- can be taken as her monthly income. Since the disability is fixed at 25%, 25% of Rs.10,000/- comes to Rs.2,500/- and annually it comes to Rs.30,000/- (2,500 x 12). The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘18’ and when applied, the amount comes to Rs.5,40,000/- (30,000 x 18). To this amount, the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-9 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, totaling to an amount of Rs.5,70,000/-. The awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation and 7% on the rest of the amount from the date of petition till date of realisation. 8. 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 April 7, 2011 SP /NRG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No.942 of 2008 April 7, 2011 SP/NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129