HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No. 2500 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-09-2002 in M.V.O.P.No.938 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the claim of respondent No.1 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.84,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. Perused the records. 3 . The 1st respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08-05-2000. According to the claimant, she, along with others, was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP-04-C-669 from Porumamilla to Hyderabad and when the Jeep reached near Shahapur village, a lorry bearing No.ATQ 1199 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against the Jeep, as a result of which, the Jeep overturned and the claimant sustained multiple injuries. She was initially admitted in the Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, and then shifted to the Government Hospital, Kurnool. According to the claimant, previously she was earning Rs.100/- per day by maintaining she buffaloes, but after the accident she is unable to do any work or earn any income. 4. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 5. During the course of enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.84,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, is not seriously challenged. 8. Learned counsel would mainly contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the multiplier ‘13’ applied by the Tribunal is not proper. 9. Though the claimant pleaded that she was earning Rs.100/- per day as salary, she has not filed any document to show that she had any such income. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken the average income of the claimant at Rs.50/- per day, which comes to Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. As seen from Ex.A-3- wound certificate, the claimant was aged 48 years. As per II Schedule of the M.V.Act, the suitable multiplier is ‘13’ and the same is applied by the Tribunal. The medical evidence of PW.2 coupled with disability certificate Ex.A-4 would go to show that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 35% on account of the injuries to left leg, which resulted in limping due to shortening of the leg by one centimeter. The Tribunal has, therefore, estimated the loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,34,000/- and 35% thereof would be Rs.81,900/-. The Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, which are considered to be reasonable and having regard to the nature of injuries suffered and the treatment undergone, the amount of Rs.83,900/-, rounded off to Rs.84,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is, therefore, considered to be just and reasonable and hence, the amount awarded does not call for any interference. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date:25-11-2009 Prv