JUDGMENT : N. BALAYOGI, J. 1. The appellant, who is injured claimant, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007 in O.P. No. 1578 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad, preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal did not properly consider the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and documentary evidence while awarding compensation. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant sustained fracture of left zygomatic, left wall of maxillary sinus and left Medula, laceration on the chin and other multiple injuries all over the body and should have granted compensation as claimed by the claimant and the finding of the Tribunal that the injuries are not grievous is erroneous. He further contended that the claimant was an agriculturist and earning Rs. 10,000/- per annum, but the Tribunal without discussing anything about the earnings of the claimant, assessed the income at Rs. 2,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs. 37,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, which is erroneous, illegal and liable to be modified. 2. On the other hand, the respondents/RTC contended that the Tribunal well considered the oral and documentary evidence and awarded just compensation, since there is no evidence with regard to the income, assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is legal, valid and do not suffer with any legal infirmities warranting any interference. 3. The claim of the claimant in brief is that on 5.4.2004 while he was proceeding on a cycle and when reached outskirts of Nadipally Sivar, RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3210 came in opposite direction with high speed in rash and negligent manner on wrong side of the road and dashed the cycle, as a result of which, the front wheel of the bus ran over him causing grievous injuries. 4. Prior to the accident, the claimant was a student-cum-agriculturist and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. There is loss of income. The claimant was also underwent surgery and thereafter, took treatment privately by spending Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. Per contra, the respondents/RTC contended that there is negligence on the part of the claimant and that he has to prove his age and income. 6. 10,000/- per month. There is loss of income. The claimant was also underwent surgery and thereafter, took treatment privately by spending Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. Per contra, the respondents/RTC contended that there is negligence on the part of the claimant and that he has to prove his age and income. 6. The Tribunal having considered the pleadings of both parties settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No. AP 11Z 3210? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A11 and Ex. C1 were marked. On behalf of respondents/RTC, RW1, driver of the offending bus was examined and no documents were marked. 8. Now the point that arises for determination is: Whether the award of the Tribunal suffers from any infirmities warranting interference? 9. The claimant himself examined as PW1 besides examining the doctors as PWs. 2 and 3, who treated him. The consistent evidence of PW1 is that on 5.4.2004 at about 5.15 p.m., while he was proceeding on a cycle, RTC bus bearing No. AP 11Z 3210 driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner in opposite direction on wrong side, dashed the cycle, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous and simple injuries. 10. To rebut the evidence of PW1, there is evidence of the driver of the offending bus, who did not deny the involvement of RTC bus bearing No. AP11 Z 3210 in the accident. But this evidence is not sufficient to establish that on account of negligence peddling of the cycle, PW1 himself fell down and sustained injuries. This fact cannot be withstand in view of Ex. A1-FIR presented by the father of PW1 wherein he specifically asserted that the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, came on extreme right side i.e., wrong side of the road and dashed the cycle peddled by PW1. The investigating officer, after thorough investigation, filed Ex. A2-charge sheet finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/RW1 of RTC bus. The investigating officer, after thorough investigation, filed Ex. A2-charge sheet finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/RW1 of RTC bus. More so, RW1 in his chief examination admitted that soon after the accident, he went to the Police Station and surrendered due to fear. This fact was considered by the Tribunal and having marshalling the facts and discussing, elaborate evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Ex. A1 to A3, came to the right conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11Z 3210. 11. Further, the contention of the claimant is that the Tribunal held that the injuries are not grievous in nature. A perusal of the award goes to suggest that at Page 7, there is a discussion with regard to the injuries and had considered the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and Ex. A3-wound certificate, Ex. A4-C.T. Scan and came to the conclusion that PW1 received one grievous and three simple injuries. Accordingly, awarded Rs. 20,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs. 2,000/- each for three simple injuries. Therefore, the contention of the claimant that the Tribunal find that the injuries are not grievous in nature had no legs to stand. 12. More so, as per the own evidence of PW1, in the accident, involving RTC bus bearing No. AP 11Z 3210, he sustained left zygomatic arch fracture, head injury, skull fracture, left collar bone fracture, both jaws fractured, face injured and disfigured and other grievous injuries all over the body. The doctors, who treated PW1 i.e., Dr. Sanjay Singh Yadav and Dr. Govind are the proper persons to speak about nature of injuries. 13. According to the evidence of PW1, he was admitted in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where he took treatment as inpatient for 15 days. After discharge from the Government Hospital, he took further treatment under Dr. Krishna Murthy, Eye Specialist and Dr. Pratap Kumar, Dentist. PW1 also consulted Dr. Srinivas Rao, Neuro Surgeon. Dr. Sudheer, who was working as Civil Assistant in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad is examined as PW2, whose evidence is that on 5.4.2004, he examined PW1 in the causality ward and found six injuries and issued Ex. A3-wound certificate. Ex. C1 is the case sheet for the treatment and Ex. PW1 also consulted Dr. Srinivas Rao, Neuro Surgeon. Dr. Sudheer, who was working as Civil Assistant in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad is examined as PW2, whose evidence is that on 5.4.2004, he examined PW1 in the causality ward and found six injuries and issued Ex. A3-wound certificate. Ex. C1 is the case sheet for the treatment and Ex. A4 is the C.T. Scan report for the brain as suggested by the hospital. PW2 opined that the injuries 1 to 3 are grievous and other are simple in nature, which reveals from Ex. A3, Ex. A4-C.T. Scan report and Ex. A11-X-rays, which were taken on his advise. A perusal of Ex. A4 read with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 goes to suggest that Ex. A4-C.T. Scan report was suggested by PW3, who is the Medical Practitioner running private hospital by name Venkateshwara Scanning Centre at Nizamabad and he is also consultant to Indur Scanning Centre. Ex. A4 is the scanning reports, dated 5.9.2004 and 12.4.2004. During cross-examination, he admits that he cannot say why Ex. A4-scan dated 12.4.2004 was repeated. Admittedly, there is no brain injury to PW1. PW3 is the person who issued Ex. A4 basing on C.T. Scan film under Ex. A11-X-rays. According to Ex. A4 and A11, PW1 sustained grievous injury of lateral wall of maxillary sinus and orbit and lesser wing of sphenoid and zygomatic arch on the left side. 14. The Tribunal having considered the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 corroborating with the evidence of RW1, Exs. A3, A4, All and C1-case sheet, came to the conclusion that the injury to the left lateral wall of maxillary sinus wall of maxillary sinus and left medulla are grievous in nature. There is also fracture of left zygoma bone. Besides that PW1 sustained three simple injuries i.e., laceration injury on the chin, laceration on the left cheek and also on left dorsum of the hand. Though the Tribunal only considered the fracture to the left zygomatic, left wall of maxillary sinus and left medulla are grievous, according to the evidence of PW2 injuries 1 to 3 in Ex. A3 are grievous and the other three injuries are simple in nature. 15. Absolutely there is no evidence of any disability and particularly permanent in nature or disfigurement of face as contended by the claimant. A3 are grievous and the other three injuries are simple in nature. 15. Absolutely there is no evidence of any disability and particularly permanent in nature or disfigurement of face as contended by the claimant. With regard to the income of the claimant, there is only evidence of PW1, who stated in his chief examination that he was hale and healthy and had a good health physic and he was a student and doing agriculture raising commercial crops like turmeric and vegetables and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. During cross-examination, he admits that he studied up to 10th class. There is a suggestion to PW1 that he was not doing cultivation and his father was attending the same. Ex. A10 is the Xerox copy of pattadar passbook, which is in the name of the father of the claimant, possessing Acs. 2.39% guntas of wet land and Ex. A9 is the xerox copy of pattadar passbook, which is in the name of the father of the claimant. 16. The Tribunal having considered the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Ex. A9 and A10 that Acs. 2.39 3/4 Guntas of land is in the name of father of the claimant and PW1 assisting his father in cultivation by studying, though did not file any document that PW1 himself cultivating the lands, taken the loss of Income at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal also considered that the claimant has taken treatment in the hospital as per Ex. A6-discharge ticket, from 5.4.2004 to 15.4.2004 for about 11 days. According to the evidence of PW1, he was in hospital for 15 days, as such, the Tribunal well considered that PW1 could not attend the work for a period of 15 days and awarded Rs. 3,000/- under loss of income which do not warrant any interference. 17. The consistent evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, supported by Exs. A3, A4, All and C1 well establish that PW1 sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries. Among them, injury to left zygoma bone, fracture of left lateral wall of maxillary sinus and left madulla are grievous in nature. PW1 also consulted the dentist and eye specialist as noted on Ax. A5-prescription. 18. The Tribunal ignoring the evidence of PW1 and injuries mentioned in Ex. A3 and scanning report under Ex. A4, X-ray film under, Ex. Among them, injury to left zygoma bone, fracture of left lateral wall of maxillary sinus and left madulla are grievous in nature. PW1 also consulted the dentist and eye specialist as noted on Ax. A5-prescription. 18. The Tribunal ignoring the evidence of PW1 and injuries mentioned in Ex. A3 and scanning report under Ex. A4, X-ray film under, Ex. A11 erroneously found that the claimant suffered only one grievous injury and three simple injuries and awarded a meager amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the grievous injury and Rs. 2,000/- for three simple injuries, which warrant modification. 19. Accordingly, Awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the fracture of left zygoma bone, Rs. 20,000/- each to the injuries i.e., left lateral wall of maxilary sinus and left madulla are grievous injuries in nature and Rs. 4,000/- each to the three simple injuries i.e., laceration on the chin, laceration on the left cheek and abrasion on the left dorsum and awarded Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards medicines and investigations during treatment. Besides that, Rs. 2,500/- was awarded towards transportation, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, towards loss of income Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- towards extra nourishment. In all, the claimant is entitled for (Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- x 2 + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 4,000/- x 3 + 2,500/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 6,000/-) Rs. 1,28,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred only). 20. It is also a fact that the Government Hospital, Nizamabad is free of cost as per evidence of PW1 and there is no certain medicines prescribed were purchased by the claimant. Ex. A7, medical bills, which were prescribed under Ex. A5-prescription of Dr. Srinivas Rao and under Ex. A8-medical bills, which were prescribed by Dr. P.V. Krishna Murthy, which comes to Rs. 4,141/-. But, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/-, which do not warrant any interference of this Court. 21. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the award from Rs. 37,500/- to Rs. 1,28,500/- with proportionate costs and confirming the other findings. 22. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. The respondents/RTC are directed to deposit the balance compensation amount, if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 24. 22. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. The respondents/RTC are directed to deposit the balance compensation amount, if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 24. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this appeal shall stands dismissed.