JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is filed by the appellant/claimant, assailing the order and decree dated 05.10.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2268 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,49,478/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant/claimant, who is an Advocate by profession, sustained multiple grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant/claimant, alleging that she suffered permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and also examined the Doctor and other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A43. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,49,478/- with interest at 9% per annum, fastening liability jointly and severally on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is preferred seeking enhancement.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that the appellant/claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries. The evidence of PW2-Doctor coupled with Ex.A29 disability certificate clearly establishes that the claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of 25%. The Tribunal has taken note of the same and awarded compensation under the head of permanent disability. However, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the income of the appellant/claimant has been undervalued by the Tribunal. The appellant/claimant is an Advocate by profession and the documentary evidence on record, including Exs.A13 to A18, would indicate her professional standing. In such circumstances, fixation of income at Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be on the lower side. Having regard to the avocation of the appellant/claimant, the nature of injuries, and the year of accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to take the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of calculating compensation towards permanent disability. Accordingly, by taking the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and applying the same methodology adopted by the Tribunal, i.e., taking 1/4th of the income for assessing loss of earning capacity and applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation under the head of permanent disability stands enhanced to Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 14 X 25%).

5. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is concerned such as pain and suffering at Rs.30,000/-, medical expenses at Rs.1,49,478/-, extra nourishment at Rs.5,000/-, transportation at Rs.5,000/-, and loss of earnings at Rs.50,000/-, this Court finds that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amounts based on the evidence available on record, and the same do not warrant any interference. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,59,478/- (Rs.4,20,000 + Rs.30,000 + Rs.1,49,478 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.50,000), which is rounded off to Rs.6,60,000/-.

6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from