JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 25.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.24/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was travelling on a lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through Kothakota village, proceeding to Hyderabad along with company materials. When the lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of Addakula village, RTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and negligent manner, opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high speed, due to which, the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained grievous and simple injuries. 4. The facts show that on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was proceeding on a lorry bearing No. AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through Kothakota village, proceeding to Hyderabad along with company materials. When the lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of Addakula village, RTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and negligent manner, opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high speed, due to which, the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained grievous and simple injuries On account of the said accident, the petitioner was shifted to Mahaboobnagar Hospital, and later he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad, for better treatment. The petitioner sustained spinal cord focal intra medullary and he was discharged from KIMS on09.11.2007. Due to the injury caused to the petitioner, he was bed ridden and lost his salary as Coordinator in Shird Sai Eelectricals, Kadapa and getting salary of Rs.5,400/-. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. The petitioner sustained spinal cord focal intra medullary and he was discharged from KIMS on09.11.2007. Due to the injury caused to the petitioner, he was bed ridden and lost his salary as Coordinator in Shird Sai Eelectricals, Kadapa and getting salary of Rs.5,400/-. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written statement while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident even though, there was no rash and negligence on the part of APSRTC Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a view to get compensation from APSRTC and further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner of lorry bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer, which was involved in the accident, as they are proper and necessary parties to the petition. The claim of the petitioner is excessive. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that though the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a view to get compensation from APSRTC and the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner of lorry bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer. 9. 8. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that though the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a view to get compensation from APSRTC and the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner of lorry bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer. 9. The contention of the Appellant/APSRTC is that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver is not correct and that the Tribunal failed to observe that the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the lorry driver, and that the Tribunal failed to observe that the owner of the lorry and insurer of the lorry are proper and necessary parties in the case, and that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenses, though Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9 discloses expenditure only for Rs.1,050/-, and the Tribunal failed to observe that Ex.A-6 disability certificate was issued after 5 years, and therefore, the order and decree of the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-is not justified in law and on facts and liable to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC reiterated the above contentions in his arguments. 11. The learned counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that no error was committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation and the order and decree of the Tribunal was based on the material available on record, and the Appellant/APSRTC did not adduce any contra evidence to disprove the claim of the claimant regarding the accident, medical expenses and disability suffered by the claimant. 12. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent’s APSRTC bus driver. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the Tribunal on that issue. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/-towards compensation against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-of the claimant in the case under the following heads: 1 Medical Expenses Rs.25,000.00 2 Transport Charges Rs.15,000.00 3 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000.00 4 Special diet and Attendant Charges Rs.10,000.00 5 Deformity and loss of earning power Rs.1,00,000.00 TOTAL Rs.1,80,000.00 14. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/-towards compensation against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-of the claimant in the case under the following heads: 1 Medical Expenses Rs.25,000.00 2 Transport Charges Rs.15,000.00 3 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000.00 4 Special diet and Attendant Charges Rs.10,000.00 5 Deformity and loss of earning power Rs.1,00,000.00 TOTAL Rs.1,80,000.00 14. The respondent/claimant mentioned in the claim petition that he has undergo a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenditure; Rs.15,000/-towards transport charges and incidental charges; Rs.5,000/-for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/-for partial loss of earnings; and he claimed Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering; and Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of earnings, on account of the disability suffered by him, and it appears that claimant, though claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards compensation, restricted the claim for Rs.2,00,000/-only. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of claimant, the doctors, who were examined as P.W-2 and P.W-3 respectively, Ex.A-2 copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-4 salary certificate, Ex.A-5 discharge summary, Ex.A-6 disability certificate, Ex.A-7 detailed bill, Ex.A-8 bill and Ex.A-9 medical bill for Rs.1,000/-, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-in total under various heads as mentioned above. 15. The respondent/claimant as P.W-1 in his evidence deposed that he suffered unbearable pain due to the injuries sustained in the accident, and one attendant was with him for a period of three months and he has spent amount of Rs.9,000/-towards attendant charges. The Tribunal in its order has awarded Rs.10,000/-towards special diet and attendant charges. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another, (2013) 12 S.C.C.455 held that “In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life can be awarded .” 17. Ex.A-2 certified copy of wound certificate filed by the claimant shows that he has suffered two injuries and the first injury is a laceration and it was certified as simple injury. Ex.A-2 certified copy of wound certificate filed by the claimant shows that he has suffered two injuries and the first injury is a laceration and it was certified as simple injury. The second injury numbness of all four limbs, and the doctor certified it as a grievous injury and the patient was taken to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Secunderabad, where he was treated for cervical spine injury with central cord syndrome, which is a grievous injury and that he was discharged on 09.12.2007. 18. The claimant/petitioner evidence shows that he sustained injuries all over body, particularly, cervical spine injury with central cord syndrome, and injury over periorbital region of the left eye and paraesthesia in all the limbs and initially he was admitted in Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, and later he was treated to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Secunderabad for better treatment from 05.12.2007 to 09.12.2007 as in-patient and he suffered unbearable pain, and one attender was helping him for a period of three months, for which he spent more than Rs.9,000/-and he has incurred an amount of Rs.16,358/-towards medicines, treatment and hospitalisation charges in Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Secunderabad, and he also spent Rs.20,000/-towards transportation charges to go to Hyderabad from Mahaboobnagar and Hyderabad to Kadapa, and inspite of prolonging treatment, injuries were not healed, and he has been suffering unbearable pain during night times, and unable to do any work, and therefore, he is not in a position to maintain himself and his family. 19. The petitioner to corroborate his evidence has examined Dr.C.Sanjeevayya, as P.W-2, who was working as Asst. Professor in RIMS, Kadapa. He deposed that he examined the claimant on 22.02.2013 before the District Medical Board, Kadapat, and found (1) Malunited cervical spine of C2 vertebra, (2) Residuals weakness of both upper limbs due to central card syndrome, (3) Painful restricted movements of left shoulder due to post traumatic perionthritis, (4) Difficulty to lift the objects with both upper limbs and (5) Reduced grips strength of both hands, and based on the above problems, he assessed the disability as permanent disability but it is a partial disability as 35%, and he assessed the disability basing upon the physical examination, X-ray, wound certificate and discharge summary. The petitioner as already stated above, produced wound certificate and discharge summary as Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-5 in his evidence. P.W-2 issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate. 20. The petitioner as already stated above, produced wound certificate and discharge summary as Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-5 in his evidence. P.W-2 issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate. 20. The evidence of doctor, who issued Ex.A-6 disabilty certificate shows that the respondent/claimant has been suffering with (1) Malunited cervical spine of C2 vertebra, (2) Residuals weakness of both upper limbs due to central card syndrome, (3) Painful restricted movements of left shoulder due to post traumatic perionthritis, (4) Difficulty to lift the objects with both upper limbs and 50 Reduced grips strength of both hands even after five years of the accident, which indicates that as rightly stated by the doctor, the claimant suffered permanent partial disability, and the doctor assessed disability percentage as 35%. 21. The respondent/claimant to establish his case regarding the loss of future earnings on account of permanent partial disability suffered by him, has examined one witness as P.W-3, who was Manager of one Sri Shiridi Sai Electricals at Kadapa. He deposed that the petitioner is working in their company since 1995 till the date of accident and the petitioner salary was Rs.6,000/- per month, and petitioner was working as Material Co-ordinator in their company and after deducting certain amounts towards EPF, ESI allowances, the petitioner was receiving Rs.5,450/- per month, and they are also paying Rs.100/- per day whenever the petitioner is attending duties of transporting materials and accordingly, they issued Ex.A-4 salary certificate to the claimant. In the cross-examination of Appellant/APSRTC, he deposed that their company not filed any record to show that the petitioner is working in their company, but Ex.A-4 is showing that the claimant is their employee and they are paying salary to him. He denied the suggestion of APSRTC that the claimant never worked in their company and that Ex.A-4 was issued only to help the case of the claimant. Except that, nothing was elicited from P.W-3 to disbelieve his evidence and Ex.A-4 salary certificate issued by their company. 22. The Tribunal considering the above aspects and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to the respondent/claimant towards loss of future earnings, against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earnings. 23. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenditure; Rs.15,000/-towards transport charges; Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/-for special diet and attendant charges. In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earnings. 23. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenditure; Rs.15,000/-towards transport charges; Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/-for special diet and attendant charges. The above facts and circumstances show that the claimant sustained one grievous injury to the spinal card and he has taken treatment in KIMS Hospital at Secunderabad from 05.12.2007 to 09.12.2007. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in awarding Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenses to the claimant. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another held that “in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation can be granted under the heads of (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)”, apart from expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses, and loss of earnings during the period of treatment. 25. Ex.A-8 is a Registration Slip showing that the respondent/claimant was admitted in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, for taking treatment in Neuro Department under the consultation of Dr.Chandra Sekhar. Ex.A-9 is a receipt dated 20.02.2013 issued in the year 2013 by Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, General Hospital, Kadapa, for Rs.1,000/- towards physically handicapped certificate. Ex.A-5 is the discharge summary issued by Department of Neuro Surgeon, KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. It shows that the respondent/claimant was admitted in the hospital on 05.12.2007 and discharged on 09.12.2007 and Neuro Surgeon attended treatment of respondent/claimant for cervical spine injury with central cord syndrome and further, it shows that several medical investigations were conducted during the course of treatment on 05.12.2007, and patient was managed conservatively and he was discharged in stable condition and at the time of discharge, patient was able to walk without support, but suffering with bilateral hand grip weakness and he was advised to wear cervical collar for eight weeks. 26. The above facts and circumstances show that the respondent/claimant has taken treatment in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, and several medical investigations were conducted in the hospital, for which the respondent/claimant will incur expenditure. 26. The above facts and circumstances show that the respondent/claimant has taken treatment in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, and several medical investigations were conducted in the hospital, for which the respondent/claimant will incur expenditure. In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, in awarding Rs.25,000/-towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deformity and loss of earning power. 27. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award 25.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.24/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.