THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1598 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 13.12.2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.O.P.No.162 of 2001. On 01.06.2000 at about 14.30 hours, while the appellant was proceeding on his bicycle from Ramajogi Agraharam to Bhemunipatnam and when he reached Jaggarao Thota, a luxury tourist cab came, in an opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the appellant, resulting in grievous injuries all over his body, and his right leg and hand were fractured. For treatment, he was shifted to Bheemili Government Hospital and from there to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam. A case in Crime No.198 of 2000 under Section 338 of IPC was registered. It is stated that the appellant was aged 56 years, that he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- as an agriculturist and that he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He, therefore, filed M.O.P.No.162 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-. The first and second respondents, being driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. The third respondent-Insurance Company filed counter contending that the compensation claimed is excessive. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.35,500/- to the appellant-claimant. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.A-7-disability certificate, and granted the compensation to the claimant as prayed for. He, thus, prays to enhance the compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Insurance Company. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is clear from Ex.A4 that the appellant sustained three grievous injuries in the accident. Though the appellant stated that he is aged 56 years, his age was mentioned as 65 years in Ex.X2, Case Sheet. The Tribunal, after considering the age of the claimant, who is an agriculturist, assessed his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the claimant had sustained three fracture injuries and considering his age as 65 years, and Ex.A7-disability certificate, as per which he sustained 25% disability, his loss of earnings per annum would come to Rs.3,750/- (Rs.15,000/- x 25%). As the claimant is aged 65 years at the time of accident as per Ex.X2, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] is ‘7’, thereby, his loss of earnings would come to Rs.26,250/- (Rs.3,750/- x 7). In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment is awarded. In all, a sum of Rs.51,250/-, which is rounded off to Rs.51,000/-, is awarded as compensation to the appellant-claimant. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part. No costs ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121