HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :1978 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 16.3.2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.1178 of 2001. The brief facts of the case are that on 6.1.2001, while he was walking by the side of the road opposite to Sai Datta Engineering Works near Ibrahimpatnam X roads, a lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 9693 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant, as a result, the appellant’s right leg was broken and he sustained several other injuries. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent-owner of the offending lorry remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed a counter affidavit denying the manner, date of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant. It also disputed the avocation and income of the appellant. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 6.1.2001 at about 9.30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of heavy goods vehicle No. AP 12 T 9693 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. Exs. X1 and X2 were also marked. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. He further contended that even though the appellant was earning Rs.2500/- per month, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.1500/-. He further contended that though the appellant sustained 30% disability, the Tribunal did not take the same into consideration and granted a very meagre amount of Rs.85,000/- as compensation. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the impugned order and stated that the same does not require any interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident. The only dispute is with regard to granting of compensation amount. In the instant case, the appellant sustained comminuted fractures of both bones of right leg lower 1/3rd and other multiple injuries. He also examined P.W.2, the doctor of C.D.R. Hospital, who treated him for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. According to P.W.2, the appellant was treated by him from 6.1.2001 to 30.1.2001 and he had also performed an operation to his right leg, besides doing bone grafting to his both legs. He further stated that the appellant sustained 30% disability by virtue of the injuries received by him. Though he assessed the disability sustained by the appellant at 30%, however, he did not issue any certificate to show that he sustained the said disability and on this sole ground, the Tribunal did not allow the claim and granted a very meagre amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. When the disability sustained by the appellant has been assessed at 30% by a competent doctor like P.W.2, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same. Hence, there is no reason or justification for the Tribunal to disbelieve the same. Therefore, I hold that the appellant suffered 30% permanent disability. The appellant was aged about 26 years as on the date of the occurrence of the accident. Though the appellant pleaded that he was working as a driver and was earning about Rs.2500/- per month, but he did not file any material to show that he was getting that much income, in the absence of which, the Tribunal rightly fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- annually. Taking into account the young age of the appellant into consideration and also the fact that the appellant sustained 30% disability, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs. 5,400/- (Rs.18000x30%). In so far as multiplier is concerned, as per the judgment of SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate that would be applicable to the age of the appellant is 18. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.97,200/- (Rs. 5400/- x 18). In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.25,000/-; Rs.2,000/- each towards transportation and extra nourishment as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,36,200/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,36,000/-. Hence the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- instead of Rs.85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount 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