HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1240 of 2004 DATED: 28.01.2010 BETWEEN: K.Gopal @ Kondlba Hallale …Appellant And Jaswant Singh and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1240 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order, dated 03.12.2003 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2426 of 2001. This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant, who is a labourer on the lorry and he sustained fracture to the right leg and ultimately the right leg was amputated below the knee. As against the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs , the learned tribunal below granted an amount of Rs.1,56,000/-. The appellant preferred the present appeal on the ground that the amount of compensation granted to him is very low and not in accordance with law and requires enhancement in the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the second respondent-insurance company. Through his evidence as PW.1 and from that of PW.2- co-worker and PW.3-Supervisor under respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle on which the appellant was working as hamali, the appellant could be able to establish that he has been working as hamali on the lorry. However, no documentary evidence is available regarding the income of the appellant. Since the medical record i.e. Ex.A.2 discharge card indicates that the appellant is aged 35 years. The version of the appellant in the claim petition regarding his age can be considered as correct and therefore, his age is taken as 35 years for the purpose of computing the compensation. Ex.A.2 discharge card and Ex.A.5 photograph of the appellant clearly indicate that his right leg was amputated below the knee. Even though, the appellant did not file any disability certificate the Court can take notice of the fact that the appellant sustained permanent disability because of amputation of right leg below the knee. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for permanent disability and committed error in not computing the compensation by multiplier method. Therefore, the computation of compensation done by the learned Tribunal being not in accordance with law, cannot be accepted. Considering the fact that the appellant was aged 35 years on the date of accident, as per Part II of Schedule I of the Workmens’ Compensation Act at S.No.19 according to which the disability for the amputation of leg below the knee is 60%. For the purpose of computing compensation the income of the appellant can be considered as Rs.2,000/- per month as per his age and also the fact that the accident took place in the year 2001, the annual income of the injured is Rs.24,000/-, the relevant multiplier as per judgment in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] is 16, the loss of earnings of the appellant is therefore, Rs.24,000/- x 16 x 60/100 = Rs.2,30,400/-. This apart, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The amount of Rs.16,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses which is supported by documentary evidence and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges being reasonable require no interference in this appeal. The appellant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. The total compensation is Rs.3,11,400/-. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.1,55,400/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. With the above enhancement in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:28.01.2010 kvrm [1] 2009 ACJ 1298