HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :2931 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the order in M.V.O.P. No.224 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appellant filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 3.6.1997 at about 5.30 P.m., near Nagalapuram Village, while he was travelling in the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 9679 from Nagalapuram Village to Kurnool, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high sped and dashed a tractor trailor, which was parked by the side of the road. As a consequence, the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his left hand. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and he underwent treatment there for a period of 45 days as an in-patient. The appellant was working as a taxi driver and was earning about Rs.3500/- per month. Petitioner alleges that by virtue of the accident, he has become permanently disabled and he is unable to do any work. Hence, he filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-Corporation filed a counter affidavit denying the manner of accident, as alleged by the appellant. It further stated that the appellant has to prove that he was travelling in the R.T.C. bus at the relevant point of time and sustained injuries in the accident; that the appellant foisted a false case to claim more compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, it prayed that the petition be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 9679 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the doctor, who treated him for the injuries sustained by him as P.W.2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus belonging to the respondent and granted an amount of Rs.60,700/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. He further contended that even though the appellant filed medical evidence under Ex.A3 to show that he sustained permanent disability, the Tribunal failed to take the same into consideration. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned award and stated that the same does not require any interference. In the instant case, though there is no other evidence on record to show that the appellant was earning Rs.3500/- per month, however, taking the young age of the appellant into consideration, I am of the view that the appellant would have earned an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In so far as disability is concerned, according to P.W.2, the doctor, who examined the appellant, the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25%. Even though the doctor did not issue any medical certificate certifying the extent of disability sustained by the appellant, but in his evidence the doctor clearly stated that the appellant had sustained 25% disability. Since P.W.2 being a competent doctor, his evidence cannot be discarded. Keeping in view the age of the appellant and also the fact that he lost his earning capacity considerably, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in granting a very meagre amount of Rs. 30,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25%, while taking the average monthly earnings of the appellant at Rs.2000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- annually, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 6,000/- annually.(Rs.24,000/- x 25%) Now, coming to the question of multiplier, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is 16. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.96,000/- (Rs.6000X16). Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.96,000/- under that head instead of Rs. 30,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,700/- towards future medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment, medical and hospital expenses and pain and suffering is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,21,700/- as compensation instead of Rs. 60,700/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129