HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.940 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.75 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the minor petitioner for injuries sustained by him in motor accident, filed this appeal. In this appeal, there is no dispute 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. The dispute is only with regard to method of assessment of compensation and quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal. During enquiry in the lower Tribunal, the injured filed Exs.A.2, A.5 to A.7 and A.9 documents and examined the doctors as PWs. 3 to 5 with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. As per Ex.A.2 wound certificate, the injured was having the following four injuries: 1. Clinically fracture BBMS right leg. 2. Abrasions on foot and log 3. Compound fracture of femur shaft lower 3rd (L) 4. Fracture of B-5 right leg Those injuries are certified as grievous in nature. Out of those injuries, injury Nos.1, 3 and 4 are grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- for injury Nos.1 to 4 @ Rs.15,000/- each and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The lower Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- to injury No.2 also, which is a simple in nature. For simple injury, the injured is entitled for only Rs.1,000/-. Thus, the injured is entitled for Rs.46,000/- for the injuries and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. PW.3 is a member of the Medical Board, who examined the injured and issued Ex.A.7 permanent disability certificate to the effect that the injured is suffering from 40% disability due to post traumatic sequalae of left lower limb with knee contracture. The lower Tribunal rightly placed reliance on evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.10 in assessing permanent disability of the minor injured. But the lower Tribunal committed error in placing reliance on Utla Rahmarambha v Brunda Satyanarayana[1] of this Court which relates to fixing notional income in the case of a house wife in a death case. The lower Tribunal erred in adopting notional income of mother of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month and selecting multiplier having regard to age of mother of the injured. In Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the Supreme Court noted that there is no multiplier for the age up to 15 years as per 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. In this regard, this Court can have useful guidance from Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, which enables taking notional income of Rs.15,000/- per year for a person having no income at all and which prescribes multiplier of ‘15’ for the age upto 15 years. If compensation payable for 40% permanent disability is calculated at that rate, it comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. Thus, the injured petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.46,000 + 10,000 + 1,08,000 = Rs.1,64,000/-. 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 amount payable to the injured from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,64,000/-. 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)