JUDGMENT C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and award dated 15.3.2007 passed in MOP No. 113 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, the claimant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in M.O.P. 2. The facts in issue are as under: The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred on 25.7.2003. It is stated that on that day the claimant and some others boarded an auto bearing No. AP 35 T 4922 at Vizianagaram and when the auto reached near Maddadapeta Village on NH 45 Road, one lorry bearing No. AP 31 W 1989 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the auto. As a result of which, the auto turned turtle and the claimant and others fell down, leading to injuries. In respect of the above incident a case in Crime No. 252 of 2003 of Bheemili Police Station came to be registered against the driver of the lorry. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent and as the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the claim petition came to be filed making both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte while the second respondent filed their counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition. It is specifically contended that the auto was overloaded at the time of the accident as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. In any event it was stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry (Oil Tanker) bearing Registration No. AP 31 W 1989? 2. In any event it was stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry (Oil Tanker) bearing Registration No. AP 31 W 1989? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? 3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay any compensation? 4. To what relief? 5. In support of her claim, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and the Doctor who treated the claimant as PW2. She also got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1 in support of her plea. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent insurance company but Ex.B1 was marked. 6. After analyzing the evidence available on record the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 22,500/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 7. The learned Counsel for the claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. He further submits that the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A5 the disability certificate amply establish that the claimant sustained permanent disability as she was not in a position to do the same work which she was doing before the accident. 8. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent owner of the crime vehicle. 9. Per contra the learned Counsel for the insurance company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference. 10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle. 11. The point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 12. In order to establish her case, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and the Doctor who treated her as PW2. 11. The point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 12. In order to establish her case, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and the Doctor who treated her as PW2. PW1 in her evidence deposed that she received injury on right eyebrow, injury over right knee, deformity of left shoulder, injury on left hip and also injuries on other parts of the body. According to her she took treatment in Government Hospital at Vizianagaram as in-patient for 20 days and spent Rs. 40,000/- towards medicines. Her evidence is to the effect that she was doing coolie work and was earning Rs. 100/- per day. In order to prove the injuries sustained she got marked Ex.A4 the Wound Certificate. 13. PW2, who was working as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, deposed in his evidence that on 20.11.2006 he examined PW1 in the O.P. of Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and after verification of the Wound Certificate and latest x-ray of PW1, he found that she got old un-united fracture of left clavicle with stiffness of left shoulder joint and old mal-united fracture pubic ramie on left side with mild stiffness of old hip joint. In his evidence, PW2 further deposed that he is a member of District Medical Board and along with other members of the Board assessed the disability at 25% which is partial and permanent in nature. He further deposed that on account of such disability, PW1 cannot carry or lift heavy weights with left hand. He further deposed that she is having difficulty in doing hard labour work. Ex.A5 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. His evidence is to the effect that PW1 was admitted in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram on 25.7.2003 and was discharged on 14.8.2003. 14. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries the apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 MACD 33 (SC), held as under: 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries the apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 MACD 33 (SC), held as under: 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b). 15. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b). 15. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident. 16. As seen from the record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for two grievous injuries, Rs. 2000/- for two simple injuries sustained by the petitioner. Apart from that the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs. 2,500/- towards extra nourishment and transportation charges. 17. The evidence available on record namely the evidence of PW2 would disclose that the claimant was in-patient in the hospital nearly 20 days. She was a resident of Lingalavalasa Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Immediately after the accident she was brought to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, where she was treated as in-patient for a period of 20 days. Definitely she must have taken the help of an attendant to attend on her day-to-day needs during the said period. Though PW1 got herself treated in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, but she must have spent some money towards medicines and other incidental expenses. These two aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the above two counts. 18. As stated above, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards extra nourishment and transportation charges, which in my view appears to be on lower side. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- as the claimant got herself transported from a remote village called Lingalavalasa Village to the headquarters hospital at Vizianagaram. 19. Coming to the loss of earnings during the period of treatment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earnings for two months. The same appears to be reasonable. 20. 5,000/- as the claimant got herself transported from a remote village called Lingalavalasa Village to the headquarters hospital at Vizianagaram. 19. Coming to the loss of earnings during the period of treatment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earnings for two months. The same appears to be reasonable. 20. Coming to the loss of earnings due to disability the evidence of PW2 cannot be doubted as he being the member of the Medical Board, examined the victim along with other members of the Board and assessed the disability at 25%. In his evidence he categorically stated that the claimant cannot lift any weights with her left hand. In view of the finding that the injured was eking out her livelihood by doing coolie work, she must put to loss in her earnings due to the said disability. Though she is not in a position to do the same work which she was doing earlier, but definitely it cannot be said that the above injury would prevent her from doing any job. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs. 2,000/- for two simple injuries, which in my view appears to be reasonable. 21. In view of the nature of disability sustained the claimant is entitled to loss of earnings due to disability. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 1500/- per month, as fixed by the Tribunal, the loss of income sustained by the claimant with the disability at 25% would be Rs. 375/-. In view of the judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC): 2009 ACJ 1298 , the suitable multiplier to be adopted for calculating the loss of earnings would be 13'. Therefore, the loss of earnings on account of her disability would be Rs. 375/- x 12 x 13 = Rs. 58,500/-. Thus in all the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 88,500/- as compensation. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 22,500/- to Rs. 88,500/-. The enhanced amount will carry an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.