JUDGMENT : The appeal arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and order, dated 05-09-2012 in MVOP No.836 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 3. As per the averments of the claim petition, on 16-09-2009 the petitioner attended as a cleaner and one Basha was the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-04-V-5422 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) belongs to the 1st respondent and the said lorry was loaded with an iron ore at Bellary and at about 9.00 A.M they left Bellari to go to Nellore for unload the same and on 17-09-2009 at about 1.30 a.m. when the offending vehicle lorry reached near Kalavatla Village of Kolimiguntla Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving and with high speed the offending vehicle driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed to another lorry which was proceeding in front of the lorry, as a result of which, the petitioner who was sitting in the cabin sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tadipatri and from there he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and there he was in the hospital for 15 days as an inpatient. Due to the accident, the left thigh of the petitioner was fractured and also sustained multiple grievous injuries on fore head, left side below the eye, right hip joint and other parts of the body. In all, the petitioner incurred Rs.30,000/-towards treatment, medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/-towards transport. It is further averred that prior to the accident, the petitioner was a lorry cleaner by profession and was earning Rs.4,000/-per month as salary and Rs.100/-per day as batta. After the accident, he is unable to stand for a long time on his left leg and unable to walk even to a small distance also. The police of Kolimigundla Police registered a case in Cr.No.197 of 2009 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The contention of the petitioner is that 1st respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that 1st respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the petition averments and contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, none were examined and no documents got marked. 6. The Tribunal after the oral and documentary evidence available on record and upon hearing the counsel, passed decree and order awarding an amount of Rs.1,16,150/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit by holding that the accident occurred as the driver of the lorry applied sudden breaks. The Tribunal further held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 7. Dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,16,150/-awarded by the Tribunal against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the petitioner filed the present Appeal. 8. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 9. As seen from Ex.A-2 wound certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, RIMS hospital, Kadapa and the Doctor on examining the petitioner the following injuries are noticed:- 1. Pain and swelling over the left thigh 2. Multiple lacerations over the fore head 3. A laceration over the left side below the eye 4. Pain and swelling over the right hip joint 5. X-ray report of the left thigh indicates there is a fracture of femur. Further, the Doctor deposed that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury Nos.2 to 5 are simple in nature. Ex.A-4 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered permanent disability of 25%. The Chief Medical Officer of Himalaya Hospital, who was examined as PW.2 deposed in his evidence that Exs.A-5, 7 to 10 are issued by the hospital and Ex.A-5 is the charges collected by their hospital. Ex.A-4 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered permanent disability of 25%. The Chief Medical Officer of Himalaya Hospital, who was examined as PW.2 deposed in his evidence that Exs.A-5, 7 to 10 are issued by the hospital and Ex.A-5 is the charges collected by their hospital. Basing on the evidence of PW.2 and documents which were marked as Exs.A-1, 5, 7 to 10, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,150/-towards injuries incurred by him in the Himalaya hospital. Ex.A-6 is the Ambulance charges to a tune of Rs.4000/-. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for the same. Ex.A-7 is the medical bills issued by M/s Veera Brahmendra Medical and Fancy Stores to a tune of Rs.15,067/-. Since no doctor was examined and there are no particulars of the Doctor who has prescribed those medicines and in the absence of examination of Pharmacist, the Tribunal did not incline to accept Ex.A-7 and A-9. Pw.3, who is the Assistant Professor in RIMS hospital, Kadapa, deposed in his evidence that he issued Ex.A-4 disability certificate certifying that there is 25% permanent disability due to the fracture sustained by PW.1 on the left side hip joint. The wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A-2 reads that Doctor has noticed injury No.2 as grievous in nature and as such the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25000/-for injury No.1 and Rs.3000/-each to the injury Nos.2 to 5 as they are simple in nature. Towards permanent disability, a compensation of Rs.25,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,16,150/-. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to consider that granting of Rs.25,000/-towards permanent disability is not correct and no amount was awarded for pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment passed by the Tribunal below and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and interference of this court does not warranted. 11. After considering the rival contentions of both counsel and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident or negligence aspect or with regard to liability. 11. After considering the rival contentions of both counsel and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident or negligence aspect or with regard to liability. The only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable or liable to be enhanced? 12. Admittedly, as per the evidence of Doctor who was examined as PW.3 and the contents of the disability certificate, which was marked as Ex.A-4 the petitioner has sustained 25% permanent disability. As such the Tribunal committed an error by granting a lump sum of Rs.25,000/-under that head. The Tribunal ought to have followed the stipulated procedure for this purpose. There is no dispute with regard to the avocation of the petitioner. The contention that he was the cleaner of the lorry, which met with an accident, is not supported by any evidence. At the same time, the respondent-Insurance Company also did not produce any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 which was followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T. Rama Krishna vs. Valluri Babu Rao and others, 2017 (1) ALD 453 wherein it was held that in the absence of the proof of earnings, minimum Rs.3,000/-per month can be taken as income. As per the ratio laid down in these judgments, the income of the petitioner can be safely to be considered as Rs.3,000/-per month and it is multiplied by appropriate multiplier i.e., “13” the compensation towards disability would come to Rs.1,17,000/-{ Rs.3000/-x 12 x 13 x 25%}. Therefore, this court feels that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,17,000/-towards permanent disability suffered by him. By adding the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, the total compensation would come to Rs.2,08,150/-. Though, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,08,150/-it is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs as the claim of the petitioner is for Rs.2 lakh only. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per month from the date of petition till realization. 13. Though, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,08,150/-it is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs as the claim of the petitioner is for Rs.2 lakh only. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per month from the date of petition till realization. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the compensation of Rs.1,16,150/-(Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand one hundred and fifty only) which was awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only). The enhanced amount of Rs.83,850/-(Rupees eighty three thousand eight hundred and fifty only) shall carry with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. However, the other directions of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.