JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed by the injured/claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.931 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Guntur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Mr. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate, representing Mr.N.Subbarao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent No.2- Insurance company.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Claims Tribunal in the original petition.

4. The petitioner in the claim petition filed the above O.P., stating inter alia, that while he was going in an Auto bearing No.AP-7W-1751 on 13.08.2000 from Muppalla side towards Narasaraopet and when the auto reached near Gollapadu Village, the driver of a Jeep bearing No.AP-7U- 5306, dashed against the auto and as a result of the same, the petitioner received grievous injuries to his left leg. Initially, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- by amending the Original Petition as the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to amputation of his left leg.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent –Insurance Company filed its written statement, as also additional written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner was responsible for the accident and therefore he cannot claim compensation against the owner of the jeep.

6. The petitioner in support of his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctors who treated the injured were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent Insurance-Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal while answering the issues in favour of the petitioner inter alia, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-7U5306. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence on record, and the fact that the left leg of the petitioner was amputated below the knee and considering the permanent disability at 50% due to such amputation, arrived at the loss of future earnings at Rs.80,000/- (50% of Rs.1,60,000/-). The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities/loss of marriage prospects and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment as against the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal in partly allowing the claim petition, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant inter alia contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the petitioner/claimant at Rs.15,000/- p.a., as against the claim of Rs.3,000/- per month. He would further contend that the petitioner/claimant was unmarried at the time of accident and the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, instead of 50% of the income. He submits that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the applicable multiplier is ‘18’ but the Tribunal erroneously took the same as ‘16’. While relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others, 2011 ACJ 1, Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and Another v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 850 and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others, 2020 ACJ 2695 and National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356 etc., the learned counsel would urge that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for more compensation, with interest @ 9