THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.3731 of 2004 ORDER: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order and decree dated 03.07.2004 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1318 of 2002, whereby an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded towards compensation to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., when the appellant/claimant stood near the divider of the road at Hafeezpet cross roads, Miyapur, Hyderabad, the offending lorry bearing No.ADF-6215 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant and ran over his legs, resulting crushed fractures of both legs, injuries to head and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein the left leg of the claimant was amputated above the knee. Due to the said accident, the claimant is unable to sit, stand and walk and he lost his source of income. Hence, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent- Insurance Corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition regarding the age, income, occupation and the injuries received by the claimant and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 18.05.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ADF 6215 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. To substantiate his claim, on behalf of the claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. Case sheet of the petitioner at Gandhi Hospital was marked as Ex.X.1. On behalf of the second respondent, Ex.B.1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material available on record, observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and because of the said accident, the claimant sustained crushed fractures to both his legs and several other injuries and the same needs no interference by this Court. Regarding the quantum of compensation, though the claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal took his earnings at Rs.1,250/- p.m., as he did not file any supporting evidence, and as per Exs.A.8 and A.9-disability certificates, the disability of the claimant was assessed at 50%, and accordingly the annual income of the claimant was arrived at Rs.7,500/-, and after applying multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for transportation and extra nourishment, though no evidence was produced for the same. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Both owner and insurance company were made jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant filed the present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the claimant on lower side and thereby granted less compensation to the claimant and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry. It is also true that the appellant’s both legs were crushed when the offending lorry ran over him and his left leg was amputated below the knee in the operation conducted on 19.05.2003. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and suffered severe pain. Due to the said accident, the appellant was completely bed ridden and permanently disabled; he lost all his amenities and comforts in his life; he lost all hopes of marriage due to amputation of his leg and he is unable to sit, stand and walk. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to take the income of the appellant at Rs.2000/- p.m. and by taking into consideration disability at 50%, his annual income would come to Rs.12,000/- (Rs.2000 x 12 = 24,000 x 50%). Since the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1], would be ‘17’. Thus the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,04,000/-, towards loss of future earnings. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are confirmed. Further, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, the interest awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced from 6% to 7% per annum. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.3,01,500/-(Rs.12,000x17=Rs.2,04,000 +30,000+5,000+7,500+20,000+30,000+5000) which shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 17th September, 2010 VA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129