HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2171 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.1152 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur dated 08.04.2003. The appellant’s case is that on 22.11.1999 when he was going on Scooter of the first respondent as pillion rider, the driver of the Scooter dashed against persons going on the road due to rash and negligent driving. The appellant claimed to have received fracture injury to his left leg resulting in a permanent disability for which he was treated in a Private Nursing Home as in-patient and had steel rods inserted after surgery. The scooter driver was prosecuted by the police and hence, the appellant sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. While the owner of the scooter remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim disputing all the claims of the claimant and putting him to strict proof of the driver of the scooter holding a valid driving licence. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and during the enquiry, it examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 First Information Report about the responsibility of the scooter driver for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.2 the Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW.1 and certified a permanent disability of 20 to 25% due to restricted movements of knee joint. The Tribunal noted that PW.2 admitted that if the claimant takes physiotherapy, there is possibility of reduction of disability and that the petitioner can attend to normal duties and can walk. The Tribunal, therefore, took the percentage of disability at 15% and took the age of PW.1 as 45 years as stated in Ex.A.2 medical certificate and assessed his annual income at Rs.15,000/- in the absence of any other evidence. Applying a multiplier of ‘15’, the loss of future income was assessed at Rs.33,750/- at 15% of the total income. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,750/- towards loss of income for three months, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses making a total of Rs.52,500/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs on such compensation and gave directions regarding disbursement of compensation. The claimant is before this Court being aggrieved by the said award and he claimed that the percentage of disability ought not to have been reduced in assessing the loss of earning capacity and the monthly earnings of Rs.1,500/- could not have been ignored. The claimant also contended that he spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and had to incur future medical expenses also. As the claimant has to suffer the disability of restricted movement of the left leg for the rest of his life, he ought to have been granted more compensation as claimed with interest at 12% per annum. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the second respondent. None appeared for the first respondent-owner before this Court like before the Tribunal. As the owner or the insurer of the offending scooter did not challenge the impugned award in any manner, the findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the scooter driver for the accident and the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured are to be considered as having become final. The only question left is the justness of the compensation awarded. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the medical witness as PW.2 in detail and the doctor stated that he treated PW.1 for fixation of nailing between 22.11.1999 and 28.11.1999. The consequences of the injury even after treatment were stated to be restricted movements of the knee joint, which amounts to permanent disability of 20 to 25% in respect of the limb. PW.2’s admission about the possible reduction of disability on taking physiotherapy was also noted and then the Tribunal has taken the disability suffered by the claimant with reference to the functional disability of the whole body at 15%. It cannot be considered to be unreasonable or unfounded. The age of the claimant was in fact taken at 45 years even ignoring the evidence of PW.1 himself about his being aged 48 years and in the absence of any evidence concerning the income of the claimant, the Tribunal adopting the notional income specified by the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at Rs.15,000/- per annum also cannot be considered improper. The Tribunal in fact adopted a higher multiplier than that is prescribed by Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], and therefore the loss of future earnings with reference to the disability suffered by the claimant cannot be considered to have been underestimated. Though the claimant underwent treatment only for about one week, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earnings for three months as in the ordinary and natural course, he would not have attended to his work for that period. Not withstanding the lesser medical bills, Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- and it also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering in respect of the sole grievous injury. None of the damages so awarded can therefore be considered to be on the lower side and grant of interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs also is in tune with the accepted norms. The claimant without establishing the quantum of monthly income at Rs.1500/- or the expenses incurred for treatment and without proof of any necessity for future medical treatment could not have asked for more compensation than that was granted. Therefore, the appeal has to fail. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 11th November, 2010. PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298