( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award dated 16-10-2001, passed in O. P. No. 455 of 1997 by the Motor vehicles accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada, awarding a sum of Rs. 39,050/- towards the total compensation as against the claim of rs 2,50,000/ -. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are as follows: on 25-01-1997 when the claimant was proceeding on his scooter to his office and while taking a turn at Benz Circle, the bus bearing registration No. AP 9z 640, came in the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, dashed the scooter, as a result of which, the claimant fell down from the scooter and sustained injuries and the scooter was also crushed. The injured-claimant was taken to m. J. Naidu hospital for treatment, where IV town Traffic Police recorded his statement and registered a case in Cr. No. 11 of 1997. Thus the claimant laid a claim for rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. ( 3 ) THE second respondent-APSRTC, before the Tribunal, filed counter-affidavit disputing the claim made by the claimant as regards the age, nature of injures, avocation and income. It was also stated that the claim of the claimant was excessive. ( 4 ) BASING on the respective pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 25-01-1997 due to rash and negligence of Driver/r1? (ii) To what amount the petitioner is entitled towards compensation and from whom? (iii) To what relief? ( 5 ) ON behalf of the claimant, Exs. A-1 to a-13 were marked, besides examining p. Ws. 1 and 2. Ex. A-l is the copy of the F. I. R. Ex. A-2 is the wound certificate. Ex. A-3 is the receipt issued by Dr. M. J. Naidu, dated 31-01-1997. Ex. A-4 is the Leave Certificate, dated 07-07-1997. Ex. A-5 is the Xerox Copy of driving licence. Ex. A-6 is the bunch of copies of Medical Bills. Ex. A-7 is the Visa application and medical report. Ex. A-8 is the medical bills issued by M. V. S. Ortho hospital. Ex. A-9 is the latest Salary certificate. Ex. A-10 is the Salary Certificate and Exs. A-11 to A-13 are X-ray films. Ex. A-6 is the bunch of copies of Medical Bills. Ex. A-7 is the Visa application and medical report. Ex. A-8 is the medical bills issued by M. V. S. Ortho hospital. Ex. A-9 is the latest Salary certificate. Ex. A-10 is the Salary Certificate and Exs. A-11 to A-13 are X-ray films. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent-Corporation, only first respondent was examined as R. W. 1, but no documents were marked. ( 7 ) THE claimant, who was examined as p. W. 1, deposed that on the date of the accident when he reached near Benz Circle, the A. P. S. R. T. C. bus bearing registration no. A. P. 9z 640, driven by the first respondent came at highspeed in a rash and negligent manner and took a sudden turn and dashed his scooter, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that due to the accident he could not move his leg, and a Police constable shifted him to Dr. M. J. Naidu hospital in an auto for treatment. ( 8 ) THE driver of the accident bus was examined as R. W. 1, who deposed that on the date of the accident, he stopped his bus at benz Circle due to rd signal and on seeing green signal he started the bus and at that time the claimant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the parapet wall of benz Circle and then fell towards the bus, that he stopped the bus and shifted him to m. J. Naidu hospital on his request. ( 9 ) INASMUCH as the evidence of P. W. 1, who is none other than the injured, corroborated with the contents of the F. I. R. , ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2 wound certificate, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident bus by its driver-R. W. 1 and accordingly granted compensation of rs. 39,050/ -. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, this appeal by the claimant. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant mainly contends that though there was acceptable evidence as to the period during which the claimant underwent treatment, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amounts towards loss of earnings. 39,050/ -. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, this appeal by the claimant. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant mainly contends that though there was acceptable evidence as to the period during which the claimant underwent treatment, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amounts towards loss of earnings. The learned counsel also contents that the compensation granted under other heads is meager and grossly disproportionate to the documents produced and injuries sustained by the claimant. In support of his contentions, the lea rned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of B. Anandhi v. R. Latha, and Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. ( 11 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that inasmuch as no whisper was made as to the actual loss of earnings by P. W. 1 for the period he was under treatment, the Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim. As regard the other claims, the learned counsel further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and warrants no interference. ( 12 ) THERE is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the tribunal, on evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which is the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the Corporation, warrants no interference. ( 13 ) COMING to the quantum of compensation, it has come in the evidence that claimant is working as a Junior telecom Officer, and claimed an amount of rs. 42,000/- towards partial loss of earning on the ground that he was in-patient in the hospital of Dr. M. J. Naidu from 25-01-1997 to 31-01-1997. According to the claimant he was advised to take bed rest for five months and that he took treatment during that period. However, curiously, the Tribunal has not granted any amounts under this head on the ground that he did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. ( 14 ) THE salary of the claimant as per the salary certificate is Rs. 7,400/ -. However, curiously, the Tribunal has not granted any amounts under this head on the ground that he did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. ( 14 ) THE salary of the claimant as per the salary certificate is Rs. 7,400/ -. It has come in evidence of claimant that he was in hospital as in-patient for one week and took bed rest for three months rest to recover from the injuries, though it has come in his evidence that to gain normalcy he took bed rest for further two months, this Court is inclined to grant three months earnings, which comes to Rs. 22,200/-, and the same is rounded off to Rs. 25,000/ -. The contention of the learned counsel that inasmuch as the claimant has not specifically pleaded that three months salary was not paid to him, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the same is not merited for the reason that the leave whatsoever available to his credit was availed for the purpose of taking bed rest on account of the injuries sustained by him, which otherwise he would have used at his leisure and convenience or could have got it encased at the time of his retirement. I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of madras High Court reported in D. Anandhi case (1 supra ). At para 13 of the Judgment, it is held thus :"13. Because of the injury sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had to be on leave for a period of four months for taking treatment. So, he was constrained to apply for leave because of this accident and the fact that he received salary for this period is not a ground to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for this period. " ( 15 ) FURTHER, the claimant has claimed rs. 2,500/- towards extra nourishment and rs. 500/- towards transportation charges, disallowed by the Tribunal, are hereby awarded. As regards the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case is enhanced to rs. 25,000/ -. The Apex Court in Hardeo Kaur case (2 supra), in the operative portion of the judgment it was held thus:". . . . . . . . . . As regards the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case is enhanced to rs. 25,000/ -. The Apex Court in Hardeo Kaur case (2 supra), in the operative portion of the judgment it was held thus:". . . . . . . . . . determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same time not a windfall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the courts and Tribunals even the tortfeasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents are only to emphasize that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach. " ( 16 ) IN view of Exs. A-3 and A-6 medical bills, the Tribunal ought to have granted rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 4,050/ -. Thus, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is hereby granted towards medical expenses plus a sum of rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. ( 17 ) THUS, the claimant is entitled to rs. 25,000/- towards loss of earnings, rs. 3,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation, Rs. 25,000/- towards injuries sustained, Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, totalling to Rs. 83,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned award to the extent indicated above. No costs.