JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 02.12.2008, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 57 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “the tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 (a) of the M.V. Act before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2005 at about 10.00 P.M. near Alfa college on Allagadda-Kadapa Road, while he and other coolies were travelling in an auto bearing No. AP21-W-783 from Yerraguntla to Allagadda and when the auto reached Alfa College at Allagadda town, a mini lorry bearing No. AP21-U-4932 came in opposite direction from Allagadda side proceeding towards Kadapa side, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which, the petitioner received grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Allagadda, where he took treatment and though he was referred to the Government General Hospital Kurnool, he took treatment at Lakshmi Chaitanya Orthopedic Hospital, Proddatur and underwent operation and incurred an expenditure of Rs.40,000/- for the treatment and medicines. The petitioner further submitted that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged 29 years, and as a coolie, he was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month, but due to his sustaining injuries and taking treatment, he could not attend the work, and thereby, he lost income. Hence, the claim petition came to be filed. 4. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and specifically contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is stated that the petitioner was working as a coolie and he was getting income and due to his sustaining injuries, he suffered loss of income and stated that the petitioner took treatment at different places as mentioned in the claim petition, he underwent operation and incurred expenditure of Rs.40,000/- and also denied that the lorry was having valid and permit. It is also denied that the amount claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing No. AP21-U-4932 resulting in injuries to the petitioner? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? 6. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner/claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. On behalf of the second respondent, no witnesses are examined, and no documents were marked. 7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.42,700/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents no. 1 and 2 with costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant. 8. Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri V. Sambasiva Rao and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same and further submits that the tribunal had not appreciated the evidences produced and the documents, and awarded very less quantum of compensation on each heads. 10. The learned counsel for the Respondents mainly submits that the tribunal had rightly awarded the quantum of compensation on each head and the appellant failed to file any disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board and not produced any income certificate. The tribunal properly appreciated and awarded compensation as per Schedule-II. 11. In view of the above, this Court examined the evidence and documents on record, though the tribunal found that the appellant failed to file any disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board. The tribunal properly appreciated and awarded compensation as per Schedule-II. 11. In view of the above, this Court examined the evidence and documents on record, though the tribunal found that the appellant failed to file any disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent/insurer to pay the compensation. In view of this admitted position, it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the accident. 12. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability’. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the appellants. In Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Apex Court has laid down as under: “16. “.........Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 13. The provisions of the M.V. Act gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation, it is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. 14. In view of the same, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation and considered to take income of the injured at Rs.85/- (Rupees eight five only) per day. Accordingly, when the income is considered as Rs. 85/- per day, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.5,100/- (i.e. Rs.85/- x 60 days = Rs.5,100/-) towards loss of income for two months. Thus, the appellant entitled to the following amounts towards total compensation: 1. Loss of income Rs. 5,100-00 2. For grievous injury Rs. 20,000-00 3. For simple injury Rs. 2,400-00 4. Medical Bills Rs. 15,000-00 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000-00 Total Rs. 44,500-00 15. Thus, the appellant entitled to the following amounts towards total compensation: 1. Loss of income Rs. 5,100-00 2. For grievous injury Rs. 20,000-00 3. For simple injury Rs. 2,400-00 4. Medical Bills Rs. 15,000-00 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000-00 Total Rs. 44,500-00 15. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed partly and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.42,700/- to Rs.44,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. 16. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Appeal shall stand closed.