HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.938 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Insurance Company aggrieved by award dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur in O.P.No.77 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the minor petitioner for injuries sustained by her, filed this appeal. There is no dispute before this Court about factum of accident and about the accident vehicle, which is mini lorry bearing No.AP 02-T-7288 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner resulting in this accident. The dispute is only with regard to method of assessment of compensation and the quantum awarded by the lower Tribunal. The claimant apart from filing Exs.A.2, A.3, and A.7 to A.10 documents, examined the doctors relating to those documents as PWs 3 to 5. Originally, the injured was treated in Government General Hospital, Anantapur and subsequently she was shifted to Apollo hospitals. As per Ex.A.2 wound certificate, the injured was having two injuries namely abrasions over right temporal scalp and laceration on left foot. Both the injuries are opined to be grievous in nature. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses for injury Nos.1 and 2 at Rs.15,000/- each, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Apart from the said amount, the lower Tribunal awarded reimbursement of Rs.27,411/- being the amount covered by Ex.A.8 receipt issued by Apollo hospitals. When the lower Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, the question of reimbursing Rs.27,411/- covered by Ex.A.8 will not arise. As per Ex.A.10 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and which was proved by PW.3 Assistant Professor in Government Medical College, Anantapur in Orthopaedic Department, the injured was having 40% disability. He says that the disability is due to post traumatic sequalae left foot and ankle and that the injured is not able to stand, walk and attend to her day-to-day works. The lower Tribunal rightly relied upon evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.10 to arrive at percentage of disability. But the lower Tribunal committed mistake in taking notional income of mother of the injured and selecting multiplier basing on age of mother of the injured and in placing reliance on Utla Rahmarambha v Brunda Satyanarayana[1] of this Court which relates to death of a house wife. In Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the Supreme Court noted that there is no multiplier for the age up to 15 years after noting UP State Road Transport Corporation v Trilok Chandra, I (1996) ACC 592(SC), as clarified in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v Charlie, III (2005) SLT 501. On this aspect, this Court can derive some guidance with regard to the notional income and the multiplier in the case of minor children below 15 years from Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case of non-earning members, the schedule prescribes notional income of Rs.15,000/- per year and the multiplier to be selected is ‘15’. If compensation for permanent disability at 40% is calculated on that basis, it comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. Thus, the injured is entitled for the said amount towards compensation for the permanent disability as certified in Ex.A.10 and by PW.3. In my opinion, the lower Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- not towards medical expenses for the two injuries, but towards the injuries as such. Thus, the injured is entitled for total compensation of Rs.30,000 + 10,000 + 27,411 + 1,08,000 = Rs.1,75,411/-. The proposition regarding future prospects of the children based on R.K.Malik v Kiran Pal[3] has no application in this case as the case on hand is not a death case. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed altering compensation payable to the petitioner from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,75,411/-. No costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 24th November, 2010. PNV [1] 2003(2) An.W.R.19 (D.B.) (A.P.) [2] 2009 (6) Scale 129 [3] II (2009) ACC 705 (SC)