JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - All these appeals arises out of the same motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.09.2007 involving the Lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 5055 and a Maruti Van bearing No.A.P.37 M 2288 and the respondents in all M.V.O.Ps are one and the same. In view of the same, all these appeals are disposed of by common order. 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal in all the OPs. 3. Macma NO.590 OF 2011: This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in MVOP.No.415 of 2008 aggrieved by the decree and award, dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased i.e., Oggu Ranga Reddy and sought enhancement of compensation. 4. Macma NO.2203 OF 2011: This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in MVOP.No.622 of 2008 aggrieved by the decree and award, dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Family Court, West Godavari at Eluru (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.38,329/- against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him and sought enhancement of compensation. 5. Macma NO.2383 OF 2011: This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in MVOP.No.206 of 2008 aggrieved by the decree and award, dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her and sought enhancement of compensation. 6. Macma.No.342 OF 2020: This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in MVOP.No.207 of 2008 aggrieved by the decree and award, dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.20,315/- against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her and sought enhancement of compensation. 7. 7. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The case of the petitioners in all claim petitions is that on 06.09.2007 one Oggu Ranga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") along with his sisters and others went to Dwaraka Tirumala for attending "Annaprasana function" in a Maruti Van bearing No.A.P.37 M 2288 and after completion of the said function during their return journey when they reached opposite to ASRAM hospital at about 1-45 p.m. on N.H.5 bye pass road, at that time the lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 5055 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle") driven by its driver-1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in a wrong direction and dashed the Maruti Van in which the deceased and the petitioners are travelling, as a result of which they received multiple injuries and immediately, they shifted to ASRAM hospital, Eluru for treatment. The deceased in OP No.415 of 2008 died on 14.09.2007 while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.176 of 2005 was registered by Eluru Rural police for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 5055. b) As per the averments made in all the claim petitions the 1st respondent being the driver, the 2nd respondent being owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 5055 and the 4th respondent being the driver, the 5th respondent being the owner and the 6th respondent being the insurer of Maruti Van bearing No.37 M 2288 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 8. The respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained exparte. 9. The 3rd respondent filed counters in all the OPs denying all the material allegations and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the same and contended that it is a case of head on collusion and the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both the drivers of Lorry and Maruti Van and contended that the liability of the respondents has to be fixed basing on the negligence of both drivers. 10. 10. The 6th respondent filed counters in all the OPs denying all the material allegations and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the same and contended that the 4th respondent has no valid driving licence to drive the van and respondents 4 and 5 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no negligence on the part of the 4th respondent as the criminal case is filed against 1st respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition against 6th respondent. 11. (A) During trial in M.V.O.P.No.415 of 2008, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents none was examined but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through PW.3. (b) During trial in M.V.O.P.No.622 of 2008, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents none was examined but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through PW.2. (c) During trial in M.V.O.P.No.206 of 2008, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents none was examined but Ex.B.1 marked. Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked through PW.2. (d) During trial in M.V.O.P.No.207 of 2008, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 marked. Ex.X.1 was marked through PW.2. 12. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal passed decree and order holding that: a) the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent (Lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 5055) belonging to the 2nd respondent insured with 3rd respondent and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are discharged from their liability as there is no evidence against them to fix liability. b) In O.P.No.590 of 2008 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- as compensation with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are discharged from their liability as there is no evidence against them to fix liability. b) In O.P.No.590 of 2008 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- as compensation with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. c) In O.P.No.622 of 2008 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.38,329/- as compensation with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. d) In O.P.No.206 of 2008 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. e) In O.P.No.207 of 2008 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,315/- as compensation with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 13. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. B. Naga Sai Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all appeals. The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and suffered decree before the tribunal, their absence will not have any effect in these appeals in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, (2001) 1 ALT 495 (D.B.). 14. Basing on the rival contentions of the learned counsel and evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no any dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident and liability aspect. 15. The issue to be considered in these appeals is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement? 16. Macma No.590 of 2011: The 1st petitioner who was examined as PW.1 deposed that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he used to earn not less than Rs.10,000/- per month by way of doing agricultural work from leased lands of G. Venkata Subba Reddy and A. Suresh Kumar Reddy of Reddigudem Village besides doing commission business of Mangoes to maintain the family. He further deposed that he spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses during the period of 8 days for the treatment to the deceased in ASRAM hospital, Eluru consequent to the accident till the death of the deceased. Ex.A.5 is certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Reddigudem showing that the deceased was taken lands from the landlords and cultivating Ac.50-00 cents of land as tenant. Ex.A.6 is a letter issued by Gupta Mango Enterprises, Vijayawada. The tribunal disbelieved Exs.A.5 and A.6 for non-examination of the persons who issued Exs.A.5 and A.6. 17. Ex.A.7 consists of bunch of medical bills for Rs.86,882-72 paisa claimed to have been issued by ASRAM hospital. Dr. A.V.S. Padma Raju, who was examined as PW.3, deposed that the deceased was admitted ASRAM hospital on 06.09.2007 and they issued case-sheet which was marked as Ex.X.1. He deposed that the deceased was in hospital up to 14.09.2007 and X-ray films marked under Ex.X.2 are issued by their hospital. He also deposed that bills under Ex.A.7 are issued by their hospital, but in the cross examination of R.3, the PW.3 stated that the bills under Ex.A.7 are issued by separate department and he is not concern with the issuing of those bills and he is not authorized to speak genuineness of the bills. Basing on the evidence available on record, the tribunal awarded Rs.87,000/- basing on the Ex.A.7 towards medical expenses. Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. Rs.45,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection of the deceased towards petitioners. Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. A total amount of Rs.1,39,000/- is awarded under all applicable heads. The other amounts of Rs.50,000/- claimed towards loss of estate and Rs.2,25,000/- claimed towards loss of dependency and future earnings were not awarded by the tribunal in the absence of any evidence. The tribunal declined to consider these two heads taking note that admittedly, the petitioners are not dependants on the income of the deceased and they are not being maintained by the deceased and they are living separately with their respective families. 18. This Court is of the view that the award of the tribunal in granting Rs.87,000/- towards medical expenses is just and reasonable and it was awarded basing on the evidence available on record particularly on Ex.A.7. 18. This Court is of the view that the award of the tribunal in granting Rs.87,000/- towards medical expenses is just and reasonable and it was awarded basing on the evidence available on record particularly on Ex.A.7. As rightly noted by the tribunal that the petitioners are not dependants on the income of the deceased and they are living separately with their respective families as per the evidence of PW.1, the petitioners are not entitled for any amount under the head "loss of dependency and future earnings". However, the petitioners are entitled under the head "loss of estate". The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC) fixed Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and also held that these amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. In the light of this judgment, in the present appeal, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. 19. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners under different heads can be detailed as below: (a) for medical expenses : Rs. 87,000-00 (b) for loss of love and affection : Rs. 45,000-00 (c) for transportation : Rs. 5,000-00 (d) for loss of estate : Rs. 16,500-00 (e) for funeral expenses : Rs. 16,500-00 Total : Rs.1,70,000-00 So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.31,000/-. 20. M.A.C.M.A.No.2203 of 2011: The injured is a minor boy studying IV class as on the date of the accident. The father of the petitioner who was examined as PW.1 deposed that his son sustained multiple injuries in the accident occurred on 06.09.2007 and took treatment in ASRAM hospital as in patient from 06.09.2007 to 12.09.2007 and he spent more than Rs.90,000/- towards treatment, operations, medicines, tests and attendants and other expenses. His son is still suffering with acute pain and sufferings. He further deposed that due to the accident his son lost his memory power and natural physical strength and unable to attend to his regular study and still his son is undergoing treatment with expert doctors and incurring day to day medical expenses. The doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2 deposed that at the time of the injured brought to the hospital, he was in unconscious condition with injuries. The injured was found with brain injury. The doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2 deposed that at the time of the injured brought to the hospital, he was in unconscious condition with injuries. The injured was found with brain injury. As per the opinion of the PW.2 the injury sustained by the injured is grievous injury. He deposed that Ex.A.5 was issued by their hospital and Ex.A.2 was issued by CMO of their hospital. Ex.X.1 is the case sheet of injured, Ex.X.2 is the same of CT Scan report. The PW.2 denied the suggestion that the injured sustained only simple injuries in the accident. He further deposed that bills marked in Ex.A.5 are issued by their billing department and he is not concerned with the said bills. 21. The tribunal considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.A.2, A.5, X.1 and X.2 came to a conclusion that the petitioner sustained two simple injuries and granted Rs.3,000/- towards the brain injury and Rs.2,000/- for injury caused at right eye brow. Taking into consideration of Ex.A.5 medical bills, the tribunal awarded Rs.31,329/-. The also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transportation. In total the tribunal awarded Rs.38,329/- as compensation. 22. Upon perusing the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the doctor who treated the injured minor boy deposed that on 06.09.2007 the injured was found with brain injury and brought to the hospital in unconscious condition. The doctor opined that the injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous injury. The tribunal without giving any credence to the expert evidence of PW.2, who was the doctor, relying the case sheets prepared by CMO considered the injuries as simple injuries, which is not acceptable. In my considered opinion, the opinion of the doctor has to be given much credence and the evidence of the doctor that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury has to be taken into account. The tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.31,329/- towards medical expenses basing on the Ex.A.5. The amount awarded towards transportation also appears to be very meager. Mainly, the tribunal lost sight to consider that the petitioner is a minor boy, studying IV class and he sustained brain injury as per the evidence of PW.2 and due to this injuries, the petitioner ought to have suffered mental and physical agony and definitely it will effects on his studies and day to day works. Mainly, the tribunal lost sight to consider that the petitioner is a minor boy, studying IV class and he sustained brain injury as per the evidence of PW.2 and due to this injuries, the petitioner ought to have suffered mental and physical agony and definitely it will effects on his studies and day to day works. While determining compensation in such type of cases, the pain and suffering and mental agony suffered by the minor boy has to be taken into account. Considering all these facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under different heads can be detailed as below: (a) for grievous injury : Rs.25,000-00 (b) for simple injury : Rs. 5,000-00 (c) for medical expenses : Rs.31,329-00 (d) for transportation charges : Rs. 5,000-00 (e) for extra nourishment and attendant charges : Rs.10,000-00 (f) for mental agony and discomfort : Rs.10,000-00 Total : Rs.86,329-00 So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.48,000/-. 23. M.A.C.M.A.No.2383 of 2011: The petitioner claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards the injuries sustained by her. She was examined herself as PW.1 and she filed documents as Exs.A.5 to A.11 to prove her injuries, treatment and expenditure incurred for the same. PW.2 was the doctor who treated the petitioner. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. In total compensation of Rs.35,000/- was awarded. 24. The evidence available on record shows that the petitioner was examined as PW.1, who deposed that she sustained fracture injuries to the left hand and left leg in the accident. She was shifted to ASRAM hospital for treatment and she was treated as in patient for a period of 20 days. She deposed that she was operated twice and she spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for operation, medicines and tests, etc. She is taking treatment in the hospital for follow up treatment and taking medicines as and when she is getting pain. She further deposed that she is unable to do any work and totally depending upon others for personal necessities. She further deposed that she used to do milk vending business and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner filed documents which were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.11. The PW.2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner. She further deposed that she is unable to do any work and totally depending upon others for personal necessities. She further deposed that she used to do milk vending business and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner filed documents which were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.11. The PW.2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner. He deposed that on 06.09.2007 the petitioner was brought to the hospital for treatment of fracture left thigh bone and left forearm bones. The injured patient was also operated on 07.09.2007 and 12.09.2007 for fixation of the fractured bones of forearm and thigh of the injured. The patient was discharged on 18.09.2007. Ex.X.1 is the discharge summary issued by the hospital. The doctor further deposed that the petitioner was again admitted in their hospital on 13.12.2007 for continuation of treatment and discharged on 17.12.2007. The case sheet for second time treatment was marked as Ex.X.2. The X-ray films 5 in number were marked as Ex.X.3 which carries report given by Radiologist. PW.2 opined that as per the wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A.3 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. 25. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it appears that the PW.2 the doctor, who treated the petitioner categorically deposed that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and she was operated and at the second time of treatment she was admitted for removal of the rod. As per the wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A.3, the injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Exs.A.3, A.6, A.8, A.9, A.11 and Exs.X.2 and X.3, it is clearly established that the petitioner sustained two fracture injuries which are grievous in nature and she was operated for the same. In view of the nature of injuries, the petitioner ought to have suffered physically, mentally as well as incurred considerable expenditure for treatment. But the tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- for two grievous injuries which is not acceptable. Considering the injuries sustained by her and as per the evidence of the PW.2 about the treatment given to her, the amount of Rs.20,000/- granted towards medical bills is also on lower side. 26. But the tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- for two grievous injuries which is not acceptable. Considering the injuries sustained by her and as per the evidence of the PW.2 about the treatment given to her, the amount of Rs.20,000/- granted towards medical bills is also on lower side. 26. In view of the above, on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under different heads towards the injuries sustained by her can be detailed as below: (a) for two fracture injuries : Rs.50,000-00 (b) for medical bills/expenditure : Rs.40,000-00 (c) for transportation : Rs. 5,000-00 (d) for extra nourishment and attendant Charges : Rs.10,000-00 (e) loss of earnings : Rs. 3,000-00 Total :Rs.1,08,000-00 So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.73,000/-. 27. M.A.C.M.A.No.342 of 2020: The petitioner claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards the injuries sustained by her. She was examined herself as PW.1 and filed documents as Exs.A.2 and A.7 to prove her injuries, treatment and expenditure incurred for the same. PW.2 was the doctor who treated the petitioner and Ex.X.1 case sheet was marked through him. The tribunal awarded Rs.5,315/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges and special diet, Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. In total compensation of Rs.20,315/- was awarded. 28. The evidence available on record shows that the PW.2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner sustained injuries on the left wrist joint and the injured sustained a fracture on the left fifth metacarpal bone and she was treated up to 10.09.2007. He further deposed that as per case sheet and the entries therein were made an orthopedic surgeon of his hospital and the patient is sustained grievous injuries. 29. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it appears that the PW.2 the doctor, who treated the petitioner categorically deposed that the petitioner suffered one grievous injury. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Exs.A.2 and A.7 and Ex.X.1, it is clearly established that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury. In view of the nature of injuries, the petitioner ought to have suffered physically, mentally as well as incurred considerable expenditure for treatment. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Exs.A.2 and A.7 and Ex.X.1, it is clearly established that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury. In view of the nature of injuries, the petitioner ought to have suffered physically, mentally as well as incurred considerable expenditure for treatment. But the tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- for the grievous injury which is not acceptable. 30. In view of the above, on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under different heads towards the injuries sustained by her can be detailed as below: (a) for one fracture injury : Rs.25,000-00 (b) for medical bills/expenditure : Rs. 5,315-00 (c) for transportation : Rs. 5,000-00 (d) for extra nourishment and attendant charges : Rs. 5,000-00 (e) for loss of earnings : Rs. 3,000-00 Total :Rs.43,315-00 So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.23,000/-. 31. 5,315-00 (c) for transportation : Rs. 5,000-00 (d) for extra nourishment and attendant charges : Rs. 5,000-00 (e) for loss of earnings : Rs. 3,000-00 Total :Rs.43,315-00 So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.23,000/-. 31. In the result, the MACMA NO.590 OF 2011, MACMA NO.2203 OF 2011, MACMA NO.2383 OF 2011, MACMA NO.342 OF 2020 are partly allowed and ordered as follows: (a) the compensation amount of Rs.1,39,000/- awarded by the tribunal in MVOP No.415 of 2008 is enhanced to Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lakh and seventy thousand only); the enhanced amount of Rs.31,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (b) the compensation amount of Rs.38,329/- awarded by the tribunal in MVOP No.622 of 2008 is enhanced to Rs.86,329/- (Rupees eighty six thousand three hundred and twenty nine only); the enhanced amount of Rs.48,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (c) the compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the tribunal in MVOP No.206 of 2008 is enhanced to Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees one lakh and eight thousand only); the enhanced amount of Rs.73,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (d) the compensation amount of Rs.20,315/- awarded by the tribunal in MVOP No.207 of 2008 is enhanced to Rs.43,315/- (Rupees forty three thousand three hundred and fifteen only); the enhanced amount of Rs.23,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (e) the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them; (f) the other directions of the tribunal shall remain unaltered in all OPs.; (g) there shall, however, be no order as to costs in these appeals. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.