HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1659 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.547 of 1999 in its order dated 8-5-2001 for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 6-12-1998 on Vempalli – Rayachoty main road near Anjaneyapuram. 2. The facts in nutshell are that on 6-12-1988 at about 11.30 a.m., Pari Gangamma was travelling in APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP9Z-9340 and when the bus reached the cross road of Chilekampalli, the driver of the said bus and the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAD-2799 which was coming in opposite direction, have driven both the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and thus both the vehicles dashed each other resulting in injuries to the claimant. The claimant sustained forehead injuries, she lost her teeth and her left heel was crushed besides other injuries. She was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Vempalli, where she had undergone treatment as in-patient. She filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry and also the owner of APSRTC bus. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the claimant and RW-1 on behalf of the respondents in OP, while holding that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident and apportioned their negligence at 50% each, awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed owner and insurer of lorry to deposit 50% of the award amount and remaining 50% to be deposted by the owner of APSRTC bus. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the claimant was working as agricultural coolie by the date of accident and due to the accident, she is unable to do the coolie work. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurer supported the impugned order. 5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the claimant was working as agricultural coolie by the date of accident and the monthly notional income of an agricultural coolie can be taken as Rs.1,500/- and annually, it works out to Rs.18,000/-. Since the claimant suffered injuries and she is unable to attend to coolie work, I am inclined to take the annual loss of income as Rs.9,000/- i.e. half of income of Rs.18,000/- per annum. Thus, the annual loss of income is fixed at Rs.9,000/-. The injured was aged 40 years by the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier for that age is ‘15’ as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the total loss of income of the injured works out to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.9000 x 15) and the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,35,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/-. Since the claimant has claimed Rs.50,000/- and paid court-fee on that amount, she is directed to pay the court-fee on the enhanced compensation and claim the amount. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 15-7-2010 bsc