THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1652 and Cross Objection (SR) No.47675 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellants-Oriental Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Judgment, dated 20.03.2006, passed in O.P.No.1142 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The claimant filed cross-objection. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 21.12.2002, while the first respondent-claimant was returning from Aleru to Nalgonda District on Scooter bearing No. AP-9K-1712 and when he reached near Saibaba Temple, situated at the outskirts of Aleru, one Tata safari bearing No.AP-16AP- 4567, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner from backside and dashed his scooter, due to which, he fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries on various parts of his body. The second respondent remained ex parte. The appellants- insurers filed common counter denying the averments made in the petition. The claimant filed the above said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.9,90,000/-with interest and costs. By the judgment impugned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 5,25,263/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-for the balance years of service of the claimant and Rs.60,000/- for a period of 12 years after his retirement up to 70 years. He further contended that though the claimant is working and there is no loss of earnings, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended that the claimant had sustained 65% permanent disability, due to which, he lost his pleasure in the life and unable to enjoy the amenities in life and that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the said compensation. She further contended that after the judgment, the claimant had underwent other operations for total left and right hip replacement and spent a sum of Rs.5,83,564/-, out of which, he got reimbursed a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- and for remaining sum of Rs.2,77,564/-, claimant filed MACMAMP No.3360 of 20010. Thus, she prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. The dispute is only with regard to the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the balance years of service and for a period of 12 years after his retirement up to 70 years. Since the petitioner is now working, awarding compensation for the balance years of service and also after his retirement up to 70 years by the Tribunal, is unsustainable and accordingly, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is set aside. Instead, as the claimant sustained 20 to 30% disability as per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, and as he is working as a Section Officer, the permanent disability would be determined at 25%. The claimant was aged 44 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-, out of which, 25% comes to Rs.2,500/- and per annum it comes to Rs.30,000/-. The appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘14’. The compensation towards the disability comes to Rs.30,000X14=4,20,000/-. An amount of Rs.2,35,263/- awarded by the Tribunal towards special damages is also added to it. Thus, in total, the compensation comes to Rs.6,55,263/-. Since the claimant is working as Section Officer, the said compensation amount is restricted to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., 5,25,263/-. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 6. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and the cross- objection is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:12.08.2010 Note:Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121