THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3535 of 2004 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 08.07.2004, passed in O.P.No.1477 of 2002 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 16.06.2002 at about 11.30 AM near Nacharam Cross Roads, Hyderabad, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 11 K 1899. He filed O.P.No.1477 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer, respectively, of the crime vehicle. Both the respondents filed counter affidavits denying the allegations made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.55,400/-with proportionate costs payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that though the claimant sustained 25% physical disability as per Ex.A8-disability certificate, the Court below erred in assessing the disability at 15% and awarded less compensation to the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer contended that as P.W.2-Doctor categorically stated that the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant have been united and healed, the Court below assessed the disability at 15% and awarded the compensation. 6. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry at the time of accident. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, who issued the disability certificate-Ex.A8, shows that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, lower arm and that after going through the medical records of Gandhi Hospital, he issued Ex.A8. He further stated that the claimant is suffering from restrictive movements of the left wrist with loss of gripping power of left hand and that even though the fracture is united and healed, he is suffering from 25% permanent physical disability. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A8-disability certificate, I deem it appropriate to assess the physical disability of the claimant at 20%. P.W.1-claimant stated that he was aged 30 years and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 30 years is ‘17’. Since the accident occurred in 2002, the claimant might have earned at least a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month and annually at Rs.24,000/-. As stated above, the claimant sustained loss of earning capacity at 20% due to disability. If the same is taken from his annual income, it comes to Rs.4,800/- and if it is multiplied with ‘17’, the compensation towards loss of earning capacity of the claimant comes to Rs.4,800X17=81,600/-. In addition to it, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-towards medical expenses is also awarded. In total, a sum of Rs.96,600/- is awarded to the claimant towards compensation. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.55,400/- to Rs.96,600/- The order of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:23.09.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121