JUDGMENT : DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) has been filed by the appellant/Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 27.02.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P. No. 308 of 2003 granting compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident occurred at Kadapa-Rayachoti Main Road on 02.12.2002. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 3. The factual context of the case is as follows: (a) On 02.12.2002 the petitioner and her husband while returning from Kadapa to their village after getting treatment on their Hero Honda motorcycle, the petitioner was the pillion rider and her husband was riding the motorcycle, at about 1.30 p.m. when they reached near Nagireddy’s house, the rider of the motorcycle observing that a DCM lorry was ahead of them, had blown horn and while they were crossing the said DCM lorry, in the meanwhile the offending lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 being driven by its driver, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle as a result, the petitioner had fallen and sustained crush injury on right leg. She was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadapa and she took treatment as in-patient from 02.12.2002 to 29.01.2003. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry driven by its driver and based on the F.I.R. lodged by the husband of the petitioner/injured, a case in Cr. No. 105/2002 under Section 337 IPC was registered. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle having committed the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of M.V. Act. Later the injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said road accident. (b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. Later the injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said road accident. (b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement. It was pleaded that the petitioner is put to strict proof of involvement of the lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 in the accident and sustained injuries. It was further pleaded that the husband of the petitioner in an effort to overtake the vehicle going ahead, suddenly increased the speed of the motorcycle without noticing the opposite vehicle. Even on seeing it by the driver of the offending vehicle, he cannot save from the accident. The husband of the petitioner suddenly passed the motorcycle in between the two lorries, as such, the carrier which is the last end of the motorcycle came into contact, as a result the petitioner had fallen. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is put to strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid driving licence on the date of accident. The petitioner had taken treatment in a Government Hospital at free of cost. However, in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed, is excessive. It was further pleaded that it was not liable to pay any compensation arriving out of the said accident. (c) On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues as under: (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 02.12.2002 due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 driven by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? (d) In order to establish the claim of the petitioner, at the time of enquiry, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 and X.1 were got marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. (e) On appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.12 and X.1, the certified copies of F.I.R. Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Medical Bills, Disabilities certificate etc., the learned Tribunal was of the view that the instant case was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the 1st respondent. 1 and 2 and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.12 and X.1, the certified copies of F.I.R. Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Medical Bills, Disabilities certificate etc., the learned Tribunal was of the view that the instant case was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal then proceeded to assess the compensation and quantified it at Rs. 1,40,000/- and consequently it passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of the claimant payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed the present appeal. (f) Having dissatisfied with the award, the claimant also filed Cross-Objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal committed error in awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disability though the claimant failed to produce Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. It is further contended that the Tribunal is erred in granting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenditure against Ex.A.4 medical bills produced by the claimant for Rs. 5,385/-. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the evidence of PW-2 who issued Disability Certificate, is untrustworthy. It is further contended that the Tribunal is also erred in awarding excess amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges, though the claimant failed to establish the percentage of disability. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the award dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the Cross-Objector/claimant contended that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects that the injured sustained two fractures, crush injury and injuries all over the body and she may not work as she did prior to the accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as prayed in the petition and taken a view that the petitioner is the earning member of the family and she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month by selling milk prior to the accident. Finally sought for grant of compensation as claimed in the petition. 6. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as prayed in the petition and taken a view that the petitioner is the earning member of the family and she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month by selling milk prior to the accident. Finally sought for grant of compensation as claimed in the petition. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? 7. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: The accident, involvement of the motorcycle and lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 belongs to the 1st respondent and the injuries sustained by claimant are not in dispute, as stated supra. The appellant/Insurance Company is mainly challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and sought for interference. The Tribunal going by the evidence on record, observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing No. AP-27-T-9558 driven by its driver, awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- towards other grievous injuries, Rs. 15,000/- for disfigurement of right leg, Rs. 10,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for physical as well as functional disability and Rs. 20,000/- towards help due to the disability in total Rs. 1,40,000/- to the claimant/injured. 8. Learned counsel for the Cross-Objector/Claimant would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and the claimant is entitled to more compensation than the amount claimed as the earning capacity of the injured is severely affected in view of the nature of the injuries. 9. At this juncture it is necessary to look into the evidence of PW-2, the doctor who treated the injured. He deposed that he worked as Civil Surgeon (Specialist) in Orthopedic Department in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kadapa and he assessed the Physical Disability of the claimant at 45% which is permanent in nature. In cross examination he deposed that there is a Medical Board in Kadapa. He further deposed that the claimant suffered two fractures and a crush injury. A suggestion was put to him that the petitioner was not suffering disability more than 25%. 10. In cross examination he deposed that there is a Medical Board in Kadapa. He further deposed that the claimant suffered two fractures and a crush injury. A suggestion was put to him that the petitioner was not suffering disability more than 25%. 10. In view of the evidence of the Doctor/PW-2 to the effect that the injured is having partial permanent disability and she can walk to small distance and can sit. As per Ex.A.8 Disability Certificate the injured was aged 40 years and her permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 45% per each. The permanent partial disability was assessed by PW-2 on the physical examination, Wound Certificate and X-rays. In view of the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal ought to have granted not only medical expenses but also other amounts under various conventional heads i.e., extra nourishment, loss of amenities, and transportation charges. However, it is relevant to refer the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) has held that the award of compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This would include the compensation for his inability to lead a full life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further laid down the heads under which the compensation need to be awarded in personal injury cases as under: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transporation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 11. But, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has not awarded amounts towards loss of earnings for the period of treatment and medical expenses are not properly awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. I find no justification in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company and that the claimant/injured who is a labourer is not supposed to be much meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in the hospital for a period of nearly two months and must have incurred much more expenses, as such, interference is required on the compensation awarded on the above account, since the claimant suffered two grievous injuries and one crush injury. Therefore, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, grant of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses is not sufficient and it needs to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal should also award attendant charges, extra nourishment, loss of amenities, apart from future earnings. The compensation under the above four conventional heads is also to be awarded. The attendant charges for 58 days at Rs. 200/- per day which comes to Rs. 200 x 58 = Rs. 11,600/- has to be awarded to the claimant, as the claimant was in-patient for a period of 58 days. Further, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities have to be granted to the claimant for her sufferance in the hospital due to the injuries sustained by her. Transportation charges need not be granted as the husband of the claimant admitted her in the hospital and got her treated. 12. Further, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities have to be granted to the claimant for her sufferance in the hospital due to the injuries sustained by her. Transportation charges need not be granted as the husband of the claimant admitted her in the hospital and got her treated. 12. Admittedly, PW-2, the Doctor who treated the claimant had deposed that the injured sustained partial permanent disability of 45%. The counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company did not deny the disability in toto but suggested that the injured sustained disability not more than 25%. Taking into consideration of the partial permanent disability average at 30%, compensation has to be awarded to the claimant under the head of loss of earnings during the period of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of the permanent disability. Since the claimant was a labourer, even according to the Minimum Wages Act, she may get Rs. 100/- per day. Hence, loss of earnings for 58 days during which she was inpatient comes to Rs. 100 x 58 = Rs. 5,800/- and the claimant is entitled for the same. The injuries sustained by the injured was quantified as 45% disability, as per Ex.A.8. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by this Court at 15% based on the Disability Certificate issued by PW-2. Since the income of the injured is taken as Rs. 100/- per day, the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 100 x 30 x 12), out of which loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) comes to Rs. 5,400/-. After applying the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant the compensation under the head loss of future earnings would come to Rs. 5,400/- x 15 = Rs. 81,000/-. 13. Therefore, compensation under those conventional heads has to be granted to the injured in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kavita vs. Deepak and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 604 wherein it was held that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. Efforts should be made to award adequate compensation. Accordingly for the physical injury and treatment and also for the loss of earnings and inability to lead normal life and enjoy the benefits which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused in the accident. 14. Based on the above observation the Hon’ble Apex Court granted various amounts under different conventional heads as shown in Para-5 in Raj Kumar case which was followed in Kavita case. 15. Therefore, in view of the above judgments, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the compensation on some of the conventional heads stated supra. The Tribunal had committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation under the above conventional heads payable to the claimant. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration of loss of income during the period of treatment, when the injured was totally incapacitated. Hence, keeping in view the partial permanent disability of the claimant/injured, this Court is of the view that she is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 1,73,400/- under the following heads: 1. Medical Expenses Rs. 40,000/- (Tribunal Already granted Rs. 10,000/-) 2. Attendant charges Rs. 11,600/- 3. Extra Nourishment Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- 5. Loss of earnings During the period of treatment Rs. 5,800/- 6. Loss of future earnings Rs. 81,000/- Rs. 1,73,400/- (+) Compensation already awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,40,000/- Total Rs. 3,13,400/- 16. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,40,000/- to Rs. 3,13,400/-. 17. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1624 of 2006 preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Whereas Cross-Objections No. 37170 of 2006 preferred by the claimant is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,40,000/- to Rs. 3,13,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. The Cross-Objector is directed to pay necessary Court-fee for the enhanced amount of compensation. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. The Cross-Objector is directed to pay necessary Court-fee for the enhanced amount of compensation. Rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of the Cross-Objector/petitioner in withdrawing the amount shall remain unaltered. 18. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.