THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.2275 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 was proceeding on foot in Kasibugga area of Warangal on 21.07.2005. It is stated that respondent No.2 was riding a motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 L 1629, insured with the appellant, has dashed against respondent No.1. That resulted in a serious injury to left leg and he was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. Crime No.188 of 2005 was registered against respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.1891 of 2005 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him. He stated that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was incurred as medical expenditure and that he suffered loss of earnings to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. On the other heads, such as extra nourishment and pain and suffering, he claimed different amounts. On behalf of respondent No.2 and the appellant, counters were filed opposing the O.P. They stated that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of respondent No.1 himself and that the injuries suffered by him are minor in nature. The fact that the motorcycle was insured with the appellant was not denied. Through order, dated 28.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Tribunal. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The occurrence of accident, as such, was not disputed. The appellant, however, stated that it was on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.1 himself. On behalf of respondent No1, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant, but certified copy of the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B1. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the rider and owner of the motorcycle i.e. respondent No.2 was responsible for the accident. This finding is not seriously challenged. The grievance of the appellant is only to the quantum. The principal controversy is about the amount awarded towards compensation for continuing permanent disability. Respondent No.1 claimed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- under that caption. For this purpose, it became necessary to ascertain the income of respondent No.1 and the percentage of the disability suffered by him on account of the accident. Though he pleaded that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, the Tribunal took the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- for a person, who was said to be doing business, and that amount cannot be said to be on a higher side. Since respondent No.1 was aged 50 years, the multiplier ‘13’, as provided for under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, was chosen. The total amount with that multiplier would be Rs.4,68,000/-. The disability suffered by respondent No.1 was certified to be 30%. One-third of that amount comes to Rs.1,40,400/-. The Tribunal awarded the said amount. It may be true that when the O.P. was decided, the application of the said multiplier was impermissible. However, in the recent past, the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]’ held that the multiplier provided for under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act becomes applicable and even where any variation is possible, for the persons of this age, the multiplier ‘13’ was held to be applicable. Hence, no interference is warranted with the quantum. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Supreme Court held that in matters of this nature, interest is to be awarded at the rate of 7%. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the interest from 7.5% to 7%. In other respects, the order under appeal is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 01.12.2011. kdl [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court cases 121