JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Assailing the Award and Decree dated 08.02.2006 in O.P. No.1720 of 2002 passed by the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad - cum - XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 8,04,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Four Thousand Only) towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) made by the appellant for the injuries she sustained in a road accident occurred on 05.06.2000. 3. Heard Mr. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurer. 4. It is relevant to note that on consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep in question viz., AET 104. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 vide MACMA No.1437 of 2006 was dismissed on 18.12.2007 itself and, therefore, the finding with regard to occurring the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep has attained finality. 5. The only issue that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. It is the specific contention of the appellant that she is a noted Cine Artist working for Tele Serials of the Doordarshan, Gemeni TV, E-TV, City Cable Channels and motion pictures since 1997. She is popularly known as 'Charishma Chali'. She was an Anchor for the City Cable during June, 2000 for a programme named 'Best of Luck'. 7. According to the appellant, on 05.06.2000, she along with her mother after completion of shooting 'Best of Luck' programme of the City Cable, started from Mulugu of Warangal District at about 6.00 a.m. in a private jeep driven by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 bearing No.AET 104. After crossing Vurugonda village, respondent No.1 drove the jeep at high speed. According to the appellant, on 05.06.2000, she along with her mother after completion of shooting 'Best of Luck' programme of the City Cable, started from Mulugu of Warangal District at about 6.00 a.m. in a private jeep driven by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 bearing No.AET 104. After crossing Vurugonda village, respondent No.1 drove the jeep at high speed. At about 7.30 a.m., driver of the said jeep due to high speed, lost control over the jeep, on account of which, jeep went off the road on the left side and dashed against a big tree. As a result of the impact, the jeep was damaged. The appellant, who was sitting beside the driver of the jeep, sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The other inmates of the jeep also sustained injuries. The appellant and others were shifted in an RTC bus to Warangal and the appellant was admitted in Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to the said accident, the appellant sustained fracture of middle portion of left thigh with a hole and there was loss of flush and skin up to large extent under the knee cap on the left leg and there were injuries on the feet, ankle tarsal and important nerves were cut off and she lost sensation also. The appellant was operated in Jaya Hospitals on 05.06.2000 and discharged on 21.07.2000. The appellant was advised physiotherapy and plastic surgery. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was treated in Gokulam Hospital at Salem from 01.08.2000 to 5.08.2000. She has been moving on crutches and she was bed-ridden for a period of two months. She was further admitted on 21.08.2000 in Arvind Hospitals at Tiruchi District and discharged on 01.09.2000. Thus, the appellant took treatment up to December, 2000. It is the further contention of the appellant that she was operated on 06.09.2001 at Mediciti Hospitals, Hyderabad as her thigh bone did not set and steel plates were implanted. The appellant was discharged on 13.09.2001 and she was advised to take bed-rest for two months. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, that due to the said accident and resultant injuries and surgeries for her treatment, she gained weight and became unfit to the cine field. The appellant was discharged on 13.09.2001 and she was advised to take bed-rest for two months. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, that due to the said accident and resultant injuries and surgeries for her treatment, she gained weight and became unfit to the cine field. She is unable to lead her normal life, pursue her profession, learn dances, lost her bright future, chances of her marriage and other amenities of life. According to him, the appellant has spent heavily for her treatment. She used to earn an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month at the time of accident and expected to earn at least Rs. 5.00 lakhs per month, but due to the accident, she lost the hope of future earnings, lost her earnings by the date of accident and, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads. 11. Respondent No.1 - driver of the jeep remained exparte before the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.2 - owner of the jeep filed counter denying the manner of accident and his liability to pay the compensation. He has contended that as per the charge sheet, the name of the injured is one Chandra Shekera Charisma and the appellant's name is not shown and, therefore, she is not entitled for compensation. 13. Respondent No.3 - insurer of the jeep also filed counter taking a plea that in FIR and charge sheet, the appellant's name was not mentioned and, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation. It is also contended that the jeep in question was a contract carriage while respondent No.1 was holding a driving license to drive the light motor vehicles and non-transport vehicles at the time of accident and thus was not holding a valid driving license and, therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation. 14. With the said contentions, respondent No.3 prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim. 15. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence and documents available on record awarded an amount of Rs. 8,04,000/- towards compensation to the appellant under various heads as mentioned in paragraph No.23 of the award. 16. Impugning the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that due to the accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries, she underwent surgeries and also treatment. 8,04,000/- towards compensation to the appellant under various heads as mentioned in paragraph No.23 of the award. 16. Impugning the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that due to the accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries, she underwent surgeries and also treatment. Due to the said treatment, she gained weight, became unfit to cine field and she was unable to lead her normal life, pursue her profession, learn dances and, therefore, she lost her bright future and chances of her marriage and other amenities of life. He has further contended that the appellant has spent huge amounts towards treatment. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon Exs.A16 to A23 - medical bills, apart from filing the entire medical reports. According to him, the appellant being TV Artist, used to earn an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month and she was aged 17 years. He has also strenuously contended that she was operated in Mediciti Hospital on 06.09.2001, steel plates were implanted. The appellant was advised to take bed-rest. According to him, without considering the said aspects and also the loss of earnings, future prospects etc., the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 8,04,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 15.00 lakhs made by the appellant. 17. On the other hand, supporting the award, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the Tribunal considered the entire evidence and the documents filed by the appellant and awarded the amount of Rs. 8,04,000/- as compensation under various heads and the same is reasonable. There is no error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the said amount and, as such, there is no circumstance that warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal. 18. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant was a noted Cine Artist working for Tele Serials of the Doordarshan, Gemeni TV., E-TV, City Cable Channels and motion pictures since 1997. She is popularly known as Charishma Chali. She was an Anchor for the City Cable during June, 2000 for a programme named 'Best of Luck'. 19. As discussed supra, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep i.e., respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the said jeep and respondent No.3 is its insurer. 20. She was an Anchor for the City Cable during June, 2000 for a programme named 'Best of Luck'. 19. As discussed supra, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep i.e., respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the said jeep and respondent No.3 is its insurer. 20. It is specific contention of the appellant that she used to earn an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month and expected to earn a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs per month. Due to the said accident, she lost future earnings and prospects etc. In proof of her contention and claim, she exhibited A3 to A34 including medical reports, discharge summaries, medical certificates, news paper clippings, Video Cassette etc. The appellant examined herself as PW.1 before the Tribunal narrated the manner of the accident and the nature of injuries she sustained. 21. Admittedly, the appellant is aged 18 years as on the date of accident and an upcoming Cine Artist both in Cine and T.V. fields. In the accident, she sustained fracture of left femur and a lacerated wound over the anterior aspect of the right leg. She was treated by Pw.2 in M.G.M. Hospitals, Warangal and was operated number of times. PW.2, the doctor, has assessed the disability of the appellant as 60%, and according to him, she was unable to walk without the support of walker and cannot sit comfortably. The appellant has also examined PW.3 to prove that she was an artist acting in TV serials, films as well as working as an Anchor for the City Cable. 22. In view of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, her future prospects were affected. Apart from the same, the injuries sustained by her have caused deformity of her left leg, disfiguration and the same could also affect her prospects of marriage and not to lead a family life and also her professional career as TV Artist. On perusal of the entire evidence would reveal that the appellant still has been walking with the support of a walker and that the injuries have not been completely healed for various reasons. On perusal of the entire evidence would reveal that the appellant still has been walking with the support of a walker and that the injuries have not been completely healed for various reasons. Due to the injuries sustained by the appellant apart from losing the chances of her bright future, has become disabled and is not in a position to pursue her profession which mainly is based on the physical and personality of an individual. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has also given the said finding. 23. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, more particularly, Exs.A3 to A24 and A26, the appellant had undergone prolonged treatment from the date of accident on 05.06.2000 to 13.09.2001 and should have suffered pain for all these years. On consideration of the same, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards shock, pain and loss of amenities of life; Rs. 25,000/- for fracture of left femur; Rs. 10,000/- for lacerated wound over the anterior aspect of the right leg; Rs. 1,15,000/- towards medical bills, hospital charges and other incidental expenses. 24. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not able to substantiate her actual income per month, and keeping in view her profession and the evidence of PW.3, her income per month was considered as Rs. 8,000/- per month and accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- was awarded towards loss of income for 18 months. The Tribunal also considering the disability at 40% and relevant multiplier 16 arrived the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 6,14,400/-, but since the appellant claimed it as Rs. 4,60,000/- the same is awarded. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 8,04,4000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum thereon. 25. As discussed above, the appellant claimed her monthly income at Rs. 12,000/-, but the Tribunal considered it only as Rs. 8,000/- by referring deposition of PW.3, according to this Court, the same is reasonable. 26. As already referred above, the appellant was aged 18 years as on the date of accident. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 relevant multiplier should be considered as 18' for the age groups of 15-20 years. PW.2 - doctor, deposed in his chief examination that the appellant sustained 60% disability. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 relevant multiplier should be considered as 18' for the age groups of 15-20 years. PW.2 - doctor, deposed in his chief examination that the appellant sustained 60% disability. The Tribunal has taken only 40% by referring cross-examination of PW.2. The said finding is erroneous and contrary to the evidence of PW.2. PW.2 issued Ex.A26 - disability certificate on 05.06.2001, whereas he gave evidence before the Tribunal on 23.07.2004. The accident occurred on 05.06.2000. In the said circumstances, disability of the appellant shall be 60%. The loss of future earning capacity would work out to Rs. 10,36,800/- (Rs.8,000 x 12 x 18 x 60%) and accordingly the same is awarded. Further, during the treatment, one person must have attended on the appellant. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 36,000/- @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for 18 months is awarded under the head of attendant charges. 27. As far as medical expenses are concerned, though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the said head, she has not filed the entire bills nor examined the concerned persons to prove the same. But, however, grievous injuries sustained by the appellant and undergoing treatment by her are not in dispute. The appellant filed Exs.A16 to A23 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards medical bills as against the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 28. The Tribunal has considered that the appellant had taken treatment for about 18 months and during the said period the appellant has suffered her earnings. As discussed above, the monthly earnings taken by the Tribunal as Rs. 8,000/- which is confirmed by this Court and accordingly a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- is awarded towards loss of past earnings. Considering the nature of treatment taken by the appellant in different hospitals and duration of treatment, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards transportation. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards shock, pain and loss of amenities of life. But, considering the graveness of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- is awarded towards damages to clothes. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards transportation. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards shock, pain and loss of amenities of life. But, considering the graveness of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- is awarded towards damages to clothes. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 15,32,800/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs thirty two thousand and eight hundred only) under the following heads as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- laid by the appellant. i) Disability at 60% .. Rs. 10,36,800-00 ii) Medical Expenses .. Rs. 2,,00,000-00 iii) Shock, Pain and loss of amenities .. Rs. 1,00,000-00 iv) Transportation .. Rs. 15,000-00 v) Loss of earnings .. Rs. 1,44,000-00 vi) Attendant Charges .. Rs. 36,000-00 vii) Damages to clothing .. Rs. 1,000-00 ________________ Total .. Rs. 15,32,800-00 29. The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the same is maintained on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and so also on the enhanced amount. 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. Accordingly, the award and Decree dated 08.02.2006 in O.P. No.1720 of 2002 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 15,32,800/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs thirty two thousand and eight hundred only) is enhanced from Rs. 8,04,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and four thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization. The appellant is directed to pay the deficit court fee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, the respondent No.2 - Insurer is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.