JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 26.08.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.1331 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.3,29,325/- 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.7,00,000/- 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 respondents 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., fracture to right leg both bones, crush injury to right foot, injury to right shoulder, head injury and 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 08.12.2011. Subsequently, he was admitted in Susheela Hospital and there he got operated. After discharge, he continued his treatment as out-patient 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-6 - Disability Certificate, Ex.A-7 - Original Estimation Certificate and Ex.A-9 - 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-6 - Disability Certificate, Ex.A-7 - Original Estimation Certificate and Ex.A-9 - X-Ray Films. 7. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and also considering Ex.A-6 - Original Disability Certificate and deposition of P.W.2, the doctor who treated him and issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disability of the appellant - claimant is 25%. But, however, the 2nd respondent - insurance company disputed that P.W.2, without following the procedure and without any basis, without conducting the tests properly, issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate assessing the disability of the appellant - claimant as 25%. It is relevant to note that P.W.2 is a doctor and he is expert in the said field. On examination and on conducting certain relevant tests, he has issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate. In the absence of contra evidence and more particularly, the 2nd respondent - insurance company failed to elicit anything from him during cross-examination, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the disability of the appellant - claimant as 25% is reasonable and this Court is satisfied with the said reasoning. The Tribunal can disagree with the opinion of the doctor by giving reasons. But, in the present case, there is no evidence much less convincing evidence to differ with the opinion of the doctor in the Tribunal and in this Court. Therefore, the disability of the appellant can be considered as 25%. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the appellant - claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident that is fracture to right leg both bones, crush injury to right foot, injury to right shoulder, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. According to him, PW.2 - doctor, has issued Ex.A6-disablity certificate assessing disability of the appellant as 25%. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is a Carpenter and he is not in a position to discharge his carpentry work, which he used to discharge before the accident. In view of the same, the disability has to be considered as functional disability and it should be declared as 100%. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is a Carpenter and he is not in a position to discharge his carpentry work, which he used to discharge before the accident. In view of the same, the disability has to be considered as functional disability and it should be declared as 100%. According to him, the Tribunal without assessing the disability of the appellant by considering the depositions of PWs.1 and 2, considered 25% disability relying upon Ex.A6 - disability certificate. 9. On perusal of the depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and also Ex.A6 - disability certificate issued by PW.2, the appellant failed to establish by pleading and proving that due to the accident and also due to respective injuries, in the manner stated above, he is not in a position to discharge his duties and to do the carpentry work as he was doing before the accident. Functional disability has to be pleaded and proved by the appellant by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, the appellant failed to produce any evidence much convincing evidence to prove that the disability of the appellant is a functional disability and it has to be considered as 100%. In view of the same, the contention of the appellant that the disability has to be considered as 100% is not sustainable and is rejected. As stated above, the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability as 25%. 10. With regard to the age, it is the contention of the appellant - claimant that he was 58 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 60 years. In the absence of any contra evidence, the age of the appellant can be considered as 60 years. 11. 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.19,000/- per month. But, the appellant did not file any proof and did not examine any witness to prove his monthly income. 11. 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.19,000/- per month. But, the appellant did not file any proof and did not examine any witness to prove his monthly income. But the Tribunal relying upon a judgment reported 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/-, considered the monthly earning capacity of the appellant in the present case as Rs.6,000/-. 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 the 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. 12. The Tribunal, relying on the principle held by the Apex Court in the case reported in Rajesh's case (1 supra), has considered 15% of the income towards future prospects. The 2nd respondent - insurance company did not challenge the said finding and compensation. Therefore, the same can be maintained. 13. As per the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier for the age group of 56 - 60 years is 9'. As per Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate, the disability sustained by the appellant is 25%. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,48,400/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.1,200/- (15% of Rs.8,000/- towards future prospects) x 12 x 9 multiplier x 25% disability). 14. The Tribunal, on consideration of Ex.A-8 - Medical bill, has awarded an amount of Rs.87,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. The appellant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Medical bills and extra nourishment. In fact, the appellant has filed Ex.A8 Medical bills for an amount of Rs.85,581/-. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.85,581/- shall be awarded towards medical expenses. In addition to the said amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the appellant. 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/-. In addition to the said amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the appellant. 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. 15. 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. 16. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the 2nd respondent - insurance company did not file any appeal or cross-objections challenging the said finding and therefore, the same can be maintained. 17. Therefore, the appellant - claimant is entitled for the following amounts towards compensation: Sl.No. Name of Head Awarded Compensation 1. Disability @ 25% Rs.2,48,400/- 2. Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/- 3. Transport charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Damages to clothes Rs.1,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.85,581/- 6. Further Surgery Rs.30,000/- 7. Pain & Suffering Rs.10,000/- Total compensation Rs.3,99,981/- 18. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed and the order and decree, dated 26.08.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.1331 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.3,99,981/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety nine thousand nine hundred and eighty one only) from Rs.3,29,325/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty nine thousand three hundred and twenty five only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon, from the date of petition till realization, payable by both the respondents 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.