THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MACMA.No.632 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The sole appellant is the injured-petitioner in M.V.O.P.No. 351 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor {“the Tribunal” for brevity}. The present appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 03.01.2006, whereby an amount of Rs.27,000/- was awarded as total compensation, though an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.05.2002 at about 10 am near Vishnu Bhavan Hotel, Prakasam High Road, Chittoor Town, while he was going on his bicycle due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of private bus bearing No.TN-33-Y-3993, which dashed against his cycle from behind causing fracture and bleeding injuries to him. As such, he filed the claim petition seeking Rs.2,00,000/- as total compensation. 2. Respondent No.1 died and respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition with regard to narration of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, validity of the Registration Certificate, permit and driving license of the driver of the offending bus, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical expenses incurred, permanent disability, age, avocation and income of the appellant. He further contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the appellant as he suddenly came into contact with the vehicle in question and that his claim is highly excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent’s bus by its driver or the rash and negligent act of the petitioner or both? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for his injuries and if so, to what extent and from whom? (3) To what relief? 4. To substantiate his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2-the eye witness to the accident, P.W.4-the medical witness, who treated him soon after the accident and P.W.3-the medical witness, who subsequently treated him and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 on his behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, taking the evidence and other material on record into consideration, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,000/- to the appellant as against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. It is the case of the appellant that though he claimed to be a painter earning Rs.150/- per day and the same was incorporated in his pleadings, the same was not considered by the Tribunal and no amount was awarded towards loss of earnings. He was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. Though as per Ex.P5 issued by P.W.3-medical witness, he suffered 20%-25% functional disability, the Tribunal did not consider the same and did not award any amount towards such disability. He could not attend to his professional work as a painter till now due to the fracture of right leg and hereafter also he cannot attend to his professional work since the fracture of his right leg is permanent one. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of earnings. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without conceding to the earnings of the appellant, has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses, though an amount of Rs.20,000/- was claimed on that count, and an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, though an amount of Rs.5,000/- was claimed on that count. Therefore, it is contended that the appeal is preferred seeking to award appropriate compensation by this Court. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to apply correct multiplier and also the daily or monthly earnings of the appellant for arriving at the just compensation. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that there was no proof of avocation and earnings of the appellant, as such, the Tribunal could not give any finding on that aspect. It was not a case for application of multiplier in the absence of proof of avocation of earnings of the appellant. It is further contended that as per the evidence of P.W.4-medical witness, the fracture injury suffered by the appellant to his right leg below knee, do not involve any permanent disability provided if appropriate treatment is given. Learned counsel took exception to the evidence of P.W.3-medical witness, who treated the appellant subsequently and who issued Ex.A5, disability certificate, stating that the appellant had suffered 20%-25% functional disability. In the circumstances, it is contended that the Tribunal rightly considered the nature of injuries and in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4-medical witnesses, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.27,000/- to the appellant viz., Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. Lastly, it is contended that since the appellant could not produce any proof as to his age, occupation and income to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, his age, earnings and correct multiplier could not be fixed. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that the appellant had suffered fracture injury to his right leg below knee besides other injuries in the motor vehicle accident. He was treated by P.Ws.3 and 4. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and Ex.A4- wound certificate and Ex.A5-disability certificate testify the above facts. It cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in not implementing correct multiplier, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, since his earnings were not proved. However, having regard to the fact that he was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and as he has stated to have suffered functional disability of 25% on account of the fracture injury suffered by him to his right leg as shown in Ex.A5, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can reasonably be enhanced since the Tribunal could not decide the earnings of the injured by treating him at least as a non-earning person by fixing the notional income. Hence, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and since the appellant was claimed to be aged about 22 years, the appropriate multiplier, for his age group is ‘16’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]’. Accordingly, if the annual income of the appellant is capitalized with multiplier ‘16’ {Rs.15,000/- X 16}, it comes to Rs.2,40,000/- and out of that 25% of the amount comes to Rs.60,000/- {Rs.2,40,000/- X 25%} and the same is considered to be just and reasonable to be awarded towards the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and the same is accordingly awarded. In addition to that, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the compensation of Rs.27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by another Rs.60,000/- {Rupees sixty thousand only}. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.87,000/- {Rupees eighty seven thousand only}. However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 29th July 2011 RRB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121