JUDGMENT Arun D. Upadhye, J. (Oral) - The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and award dated 26/04/2007 passed by the Adhoc Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 184/2003. 2. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 6,85,350/with interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 25.06.2003, till its realization. This appeal was admitted on 24.04.2008 and awaiting for its turn for final hearing. Today, the matter is called out for final hearing. 3. None present for the respondents. I have heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred while granting the compensation more than claimed by the respondent No.1/ Claimant. According to him, the claimant as claimed has restricted the amount of compensation Rs. 5,00,000/only. However, the Tribunal has granted compensation Rs. 6,85,350/. He further submitted that there is contributory negligence, however the Tribunal has not considered the same and held the appellant liable for entire compensation. He also submitted that the monthly income of Rs. 3000/is wrongly considered by the Tribunal while granting the compensation. The learned Tribunal also not recorded the finding that how the accident took place. Lastly learned counsel for the appellant prays that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the impugned judgment and award as well as material placed on record. From perusal of the same, it appears that the respondent No.1/claimant has filed the Petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to him, accident took place at 03.03.2003 at about 3.30 p.m. when he was coming on motor cycle bearing No. MH31/ 6541 as a pillion rider from Amravati towards Daryapur. One Faim Jawed was driver of the said vehicle. When the said Motorcycle reached near Madhalapur, one S.T. Bus bearing No. MH31/ AP9007 came from opposite side and gave dash to the motorcycle. The S.T. driver was rash and negligent while driving of the said S.T. Bus. 6. One Faim Jawed was driver of the said vehicle. When the said Motorcycle reached near Madhalapur, one S.T. Bus bearing No. MH31/ AP9007 came from opposite side and gave dash to the motorcycle. The S.T. driver was rash and negligent while driving of the said S.T. Bus. 6. According to him, after accident he was taken to the General Hospital, Amravati and thereafter shifted to Medical College, Nagpur. He was admitted in the hospital from 04.03.2003 to 13.04.2003. According to him, there was fracture on his leg and he was operated and he spent of Rs. 2,00,000/for medical expenses and he also taken treatment from General Hospital, Amravati and then Navjeevan Hospital and also required to spent money for the same. Accordingly, he suffered permanent disability. 7. According to him, the offence was registered against the driver of S.T. Bus under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code vide crime No. 23/2003 at Police Station, Kholapur. The appellant/MSRTC by filling written statement at Exhibit No.23 resisted the claim. All adverse allegations made in the petition are denied. According to the appellant/MSRTC, on 3.3.2003, the S.T. Bus bearing No. MH31/ AP9007 was on the journey from Buldahana to Amravati. When the respondent No.2 saw that the motor cyclist is coming from opposite direction in a very high speed, he minimized the speed of his S.T. Bus. However, the motor cyclist by overtaking the Matador and dash into the S.T. Bus and sustained injury. According to the appellant, there is accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cyclist. The respondent No.2/S.T. Driver has also filed written statement at Exhibit No.21 and resisted the claim of the petitioner. All adverse allegation made in the petition are denied. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus, therefore the appeal be dismissed. 8. After recording the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal has allowed claim petition and granted the compensation as referred above. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, following points arise for my consideration, and I record my findings thereon with reasons. POINTS FINDINGS Whether the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Adhoc Member, Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 184/2003 requires any interference ? No 9. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, following points arise for my consideration, and I record my findings thereon with reasons. POINTS FINDINGS Whether the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Adhoc Member, Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 184/2003 requires any interference ? No 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court is called for in the impugned judgment. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding that S.T. Driver was rash and negligent, while driving the vehicle, and after considering the notional income of Rs. 3,000/per month and after considering the medical expenses and bills on record and loss of income of the petitioner and applied the multiplier 17, granted compensation of Rs. 6,85,350/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. So far as occurrence of accident is concerned, the claimant has filed his affidavit of examination in chief at Exhibit 35 and reiterated the contents of the petition. He was cross-examined at length, however nothing elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve him. His oral evidence is supported by documentary evidence i.e. F.I.R. Exhibit No.36, Spot Panchanama at Exhibit No.37, Medical certificate at Exhibit No. 38 and other documents i.e. Discharge Summary, issued by Lahoti at Exhibit No. 309 on record. The claimant has also stated on oath that the S.T. Driver was negligent while driving the S.T. Bus. The appellant as well as respondent No.2 have filed their written statement, however, not adduced any evidence in support of their contents. The submissions put-forth on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has not considered that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cyclist, therefore cannot be accepted. 10. The claimant, has also examined Dr. Govind Lahoti (P.W.2) at Exhibit No. 313 and Dr. Yogesh Sawadekar (P.W.3) at Exhibit No. 314. Medical Evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant sustained permanent disability as per the report of Dr. Sawadekar who has issued certificate at Exhibit No. 308. The disability was 25% approximately and submitted that the claimant was admitted in hospital and he was incurred the medical expenses for the same. Yogesh Sawadekar (P.W.3) at Exhibit No. 314. Medical Evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant sustained permanent disability as per the report of Dr. Sawadekar who has issued certificate at Exhibit No. 308. The disability was 25% approximately and submitted that the claimant was admitted in hospital and he was incurred the medical expenses for the same. The medical bills are placed on record by the claimant as well as X-ray are placed on record. Considering the evidence of the claimants particularly documentary evidence and medical evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that S.T. Bus Driver was negligent while driving the S.T. Bus and claimant sustained permanent disability in the said accident. 11. As regard, the quantum of compensation is concerned, the mere fact that the Tribunal has also considered notional income of Rs. 3,000/ per month has no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was right while considering the notional income of Rs. 3,000/per month. The learned Tribunal has granted medical expenses of Rs. 2,57,750/ as per the bills on record. The loss of income due to the negligence is rightly considered. The Tribunal has also granted compensation of Rs. 45,000/ towards pain and sufferings and for some amount of Rs. 20,000/ towards future operation as advised by Dr. Lahoti. The compensation granted by the Tribunal of Rs. 6,85,350/, therefore cannot be said to be exorbitant, considering the injury sustained by the claimant. 12. Submissions put-forth on behalf of the appellant that the claimant has restricted the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/, however, the Tribunal has granted more than that also, cannot be considered 13. The Tribunal has rightly directed to the claimant to pay the deficit Court Fee at Rs. 1,85,350/. Considering the material placed on record and after hearing for the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned judgment and award does not required any interference of this Court. Hence, I answer No.1 in negative, and proceed to pass following order:- ORDER 13. The First Appeal No. 422/2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The respondent/claimant is entitled for withdrawal of the amount if already not withdrawn.