JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 27.08.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.1053 of 2012, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellant - claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.8,26,000/- towards compensation to the appellant - claimant against both the respondents jointly and severally along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of Rs.13,00,000/- laid by the appellant - claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 01.12.2011. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company. 4. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent - insurance company did not prefer any appeal challenging the said finding and therefore, the said finding attained finality. 5. Now, the only question that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to quantum of compensation. 6. It is the specific contention of the appellant that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident i.e., (i) Fracture of right hip; (ii) Fracture of right knee; (iii) Fracture of right ankle and dislocation; (iv) Injury to right shoulder; (v) Head injury and (vi) blunt injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sankhya Hospital, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, for treatment and he was treated as inpatient from 01.12.2011 to 03.12.2011. Subsequently, he was shifted and admitted in Susheela Hospital, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and there he was treated as inpatient from 03.12.2011 to 09.12.2011 and he was operated. After discharge, he continued his treatment as outpatient and he spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his hospitalization. In proof of the said injuries, he has examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated him, and also filed Ex.A-3 - Medico Legal Record, Ex.A-4 - Discharge summary, Ex.A-5 - Prescriptions, Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate, Ex.A-10 - Original Estimation Certificate and Ex.A-14 - X-Ray Films. 7. In proof of the said injuries, he has examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated him, and also filed Ex.A-3 - Medico Legal Record, Ex.A-4 - Discharge summary, Ex.A-5 - Prescriptions, Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate, Ex.A-10 - Original Estimation Certificate and Ex.A-14 - X-Ray Films. 7. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and also considering Ex.A-9 - Original Disability Certificate and deposition of P.W.2, the doctor who treated him and issued Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disability of the appellant - claimant is 40%. But, however, the 2nd respondent - insurance company disputed that P.W.2, without following the procedure, without any basis and without conducting the tests properly, issued Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate assessing the disability of the appellant - claimant as 40%. It is relevant to note that P.W.2 is a doctor and he is an expert in the said field. On examination and on conducting relevant tests, he has issued Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate and in the absence of contra evidence and more particularly, the 2nd respondent - insurance company failed to elicit anything from him during cross-examination and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the assessment of the disability of the appellant - claimant as 40% is reasonable and this Court is satisfied with the said reasoning. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence, can disagree with the opinion of the doctor by giving reasons for such disagreement. But, in the present case, there is no evidence much less reliable evidence to differ with the opinion of the doctor by the Tribunal or by this Court. Therefore, the disability of the appellant can be considered as 40%. 8. With regard to the age, it is the contention of the appellant - claimant that he was 34 years as on the date of the accident. But he has not filed any document in proof of the same. However, relying upon Ex.A-2 - Charge sheet, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the age of the appellant - claimant was 36 years as on the date of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence, the age of the appellant can be considered as 36 years. 9. However, relying upon Ex.A-2 - Charge sheet, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the age of the appellant - claimant was 36 years as on the date of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence, the age of the appellant can be considered as 36 years. 9. Coming to the monthly earning capacity of the appellant - claimant, it is the specific contention of the appellant - claimant that he used to work as carpenter and he used to earn an amount of Rs.16,000/- per month. In proof of the same, he has examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.4, his employer. The appellant - claimant has also filed Ex.A-13 - Salary Certificate. On consideration of the depositions of P.W.1 & P.W.4 and Ex.A-13 - Salary Certificate, the Tribunal has considered the monthly earning capacity of the appellant as Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal relied on the principle in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) ACJ 1403 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the monthly earning capacity of self-employed as Rs.6,000/-. But in the present case, the appellant has examined his employer as P.W.4, and filed Ex.A-13 - Original Salary Certificate. The 2nd respondent - insurance company failed to elicit anything from P.W.1 & P.W.4 during cross-examination to disprove the said salary. On perusal of the entire record, it is an admitted fact that the appellant used to work as Carpenter, which is a skilled job and accident is of the year 2011. Therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/- shall be considered as monthly earning capacity of the appellant - claimant, which is reasonable according to this Court. 10. The Tribunal, relying the principle held by the Apex Court in the case reported in Rajesh's case (1 supra), has considered 50% of the income towards future prospects. The 2nd respondent - insurance company did not challenge the said finding and award of the said addition and compensation. Therefore, the same can be maintained. 11. As per the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier for the age group 36 to 40 years is 15'. As per Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate, the disability sustained by the appellant is 40%. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- towards 50% future prospects of Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 15 x 40% disability). 12. As per Ex.A-9 - Disability Certificate, the disability sustained by the appellant is 40%. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- towards 50% future prospects of Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 15 x 40% disability). 12. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment to the appellant. Considering the nature of injuries and the treatment received by the appellant, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, but the same is meager and, therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. The appellant is also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothes. 13. The Tribunal, on consideration of Ex.A-12 - Medical bills, has awarded an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- and therefore, the same can be maintained. 14. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards further surgery by relying upon the deposition of P.W.2 - doctor and therefore, the same can be maintained. 15. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the 2nd respondent - insurance company did not file any appeal or cross-objections challenging the said finding, the same can be maintained. 16. Thus, the appellant - claimant is entitled for the following amounts towards compensation: Sl.No. Name of Head Awarded Compensation 1. Disability @ 40% Rs. 8,64,000/- 2. Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/- 3. Transport charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Damages to clothes Rs.1,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.1,32,000/- 6. Further Surgery Rs.30,000/- 7. Pain & Suffering Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.10,67,000/- 17. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed and the order and decree, dated 27.08.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.1053 of 2012, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.10,67,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixty seven thousand only) from Rs.8,26,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty six thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon, from the date of petition till realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After deposit of the amount, the appellant - claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After deposit of the amount, the appellant - claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.