JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 03.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.36/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-with interest @ 7.5% 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 will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, originally the appellant/petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2011. 4. The facts show that on 01.10.2011 at about 05.45 a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 16X 9741 from Sunnapubattilu Center to go to RTC Bus Stand, and when the auto reached Sikhamani Center, at about 06.00 a.m. the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, causing turn turtle of the said auto, by dashing against the cable wires as a result of which the petitioner and two other passengers in the auto sustained multiple injuries. On information, Machavaram police registered a case in Cr.No.612/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto. The petitioner was shifted to Citi Orthopaedic Center, Vijayawada, for treatment. The petitioner sustained a fracture in the left leg ankle joint and right leg 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers were crushed in the said accident. The petitioner stayed in hospital as in-patient and took treatment for a period of one month and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner was aged 30 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner is working as a Teacher in Bhashyam Public School and earning a salary of Rs.10,000/-per month. On account of the fractures received in the accident, the petitioner could not attend any work. 5. The petitioner was aged 30 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner is working as a Teacher in Bhashyam Public School and earning a salary of Rs.10,000/-per month. On account of the fractures received in the accident, the petitioner could not attend any work. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter, 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 vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that there was no rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the auto No. AP 16X 9741. The driver of crime auto was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2011 at about 06.00 a.m. at Sikhamani Center, Mogalrajapuram Area in Vijayawada, due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 16X 9741 by the driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 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-15. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked through R.W-2. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to PW-3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-15, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-15, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. The contention of the Appellant is that the Tribunal below failed to see that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and other simple injuries in the accident, and ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation for permanent disability. 9. The contention of the Appellant is that the Tribunal below failed to see that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and other simple injuries in the accident, and ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation for permanent disability. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal below failed to award the amount covered by Ex.A-6 medical bills, though the doctor (P.W-3) deposed that it was issued by their hospital towards the expenditure incurred for the treatment. The other contentions of the appellant are that the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/-only towards loss of earnings, granted only Rs.8,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.8,000/-only towards mental shock and agony, Rs.20,000/-only towards service of attendants, and therefore, the Tribunal below failed to award just compensation entitled by the appellant/claimant. 10. In the light of above contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration are as under: 1. Whether the appellant suffered any permanent disability as contended? If so, is he entitled to compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of such permanent disability? 2. Whether the Tribunal below failed to award just compensation to the appellant/claimant? 3. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: 12. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto. The respondent/insurance company did not file any appeal questioning the said finding 13. The Tribunal below considered the injuries sustained by the appellant in the light of evidence produced and found that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries as under: 1. Lisfranc’s left foot 2. Compound injury of left foot with 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th proximal phalanx. 14. The Tribunal below on disability suffered by the claimant observed that Ex.A-10 disability certificate was produced by the claimant, issued by District Medical Board, Guntur, shows that the disability suffered by the claimant is 15% permanent disability. But the Tribunal below did not consider Ex.A-10 on the ground that the claimant did not examine the doctor to prove Ex.A-10 disability certificate. 15. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-under the head general damages towards compensation for permanent disability, contending that in the impugned accident, he suffered permanent disability due to the fracture, and amputation of 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers of the right leg. 15. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-under the head general damages towards compensation for permanent disability, contending that in the impugned accident, he suffered permanent disability due to the fracture, and amputation of 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers of the right leg. On account of the same, he is unable to do his day to day activities, and has been depending upon his kith and kin to do the same. The claimant contended that he suffered permanent disability as 15%. 16. The appellant/claimant to prove his case, examined himself as P.W-1. In the chief-examination, he reiterated the same version. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contention is that he did not suffer any permanent disability claimed by him. The appellant in support of his contention filed Ex.A-10 disability certificate said to been issued by Chairman, Physical Handicapped Board of Guntur District. 17. The appellant did not examine the author of the said document or any one of the Members of the Medical Board to prove the contents of the document. Mere production of disability certificate will not prove the extent of the disability stated therein, unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , in this regard held in para 12 as under: “The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give ‘ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 18. In the case on hand, the appellant has examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W-3. He deposed that the appellant sustained two injuries. 1. Lisfranc’s left foot 2. Compound injury of left foot with 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th proximal phalynx. 19. He is of the opinion that the above injuries are grievous in nature, and due to amputation the patient suffered permanent disability. He did not depose about the percentage of permanent disability. Ex.A-10 said to have been issued by the District Handicapped Board, Govt. General Hospital, Guntur, stating that the appellant suffered a permanent disability of 15%. 20. The evidence of P.W-3 would not prove its content, except to say that the appellant suffered a disability. The doctor did not speak whether the permanent disability is to the limb or with reference to the whole body. The doctor did not depose about functional disability with reference to whole body or to the limb and percentage of disability. Hence disability certificate produced by the appellant will not help to say that he suffered any functional disability. 21. Moreover, the appellant has examined P.W-2, Principal of Bhashyam Public School. In the chief-examination, he deposed that the appellant is working as a Teacher in Bhashyam Public School, Gayathri Nagar, Vijayawada, as on today also. Therefore, it establishes that the appellant is continued in service, and discharging the duties attached to the post of a Teacher, which he was doing earlier. It is not the case of the appellant that he was shifted to some other lower post with lesser emoluments. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot claim any amount towards loss of future earnings on account of alleged permanent disability. Accordingly, this point is answered. 22. It is not the case of the appellant that he was shifted to some other lower post with lesser emoluments. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot claim any amount towards loss of future earnings on account of alleged permanent disability. Accordingly, this point is answered. 22. POINT No.2 : The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation. As stated supra, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,33,000/-as just compensation under various heads as under: 1. Medical expenses 50,000.00 2. Compensation for two grievous injuries 36,000.00 3. Loss of earnings 10,000.00 4. Future medical expenses 10,000.00 5. Transport charges 1,000.00 6. Medical attendant charges 5,000.00 7. Extra nourishment 5,000.00 8. Pain and suffering 8,000.00 9. Mental agony 8,000.00 TOTAL = Rs. 1,33,000.00 23. The law is well settled about the heads under which compensation can be awarded in personal injury cases. They are as under: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, 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 because of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, followed by the case of G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another, (2013) 12 S.C.C.455, wherein it was held as under: “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. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses -item (iii) --depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages -items (iv), (v) and (vi) -involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary.” 25. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards medical bills. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-only towards medical bills. The claimant filed Ex.A-6 cash bill for a sum of Rs.79,440/-towards expenditure incurred by him for the treatment. He also filed Ex.A-4 bunch of bills for a sum of Rs.10,981/-, which were issued by pharmacy of City Orthopaedic Center, Vijayawada. 26. The appellant/claimant examined the doctor, who treated him to prove the said bills. P.W-3 in his evidence deposed that Ex.A-4 medical bills and Ex.A-6 were issued by their hospital to the appellant. In the cross-examination of the insurance company, he deposed that he does not know whether medical bills are included in the final bill. It appears that this question is with regard to Ex.A-4 on the ground that this amount was included in Ex.A-6 final bill. 27. Perusal of Ex.A-6 cash bill shows that the pharmacy charges of Rs.10,494/-is included at column No.15. Therefore, Ex.A-5 bunch of bills issued by pharmacy of the said hospital were included in Ex.A-6 final bill. In that view of the matter, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to amount covered by Ex.A-4. The appellant/claimant is entitled to the amount covered by Ex.A-6 final bill only i.e., an amount of Rs.79,440/-towards medical expenses. 28. The Tribunal below in its order failed to discuss the above facts and also evidence, and simply observed that an amount of Rs.90,000/-was claimed towards medical expenses, which is highly excessive, and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-as reasonable amount. This finding of the Tribunal below is not based on evidence in the case. Hence, the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.50,000/-only, though the claimant filed Ex.A-6 and proved the same by examining P.W-3. This finding of the Tribunal below is not based on evidence in the case. Hence, the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.50,000/-only, though the claimant filed Ex.A-6 and proved the same by examining P.W-3. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not dispute the same in the cross-examination of P.W-3. Its contention is only that Ex.A-4 amount was included in Ex.A-6. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 29. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below did not bestow any attention to the evidence on record and dealt the matter very casually, and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-on the ground that it is a reasonable amount, without assigning any reasons whatsoever. It appears that Presiding Officer is under an impression that he can award any amount to his liking by ignoring evidence. 30. The evidence on record shows that the injured was admitted as an in-patient in City Orthopaedic Center, Vijayawada, and he was there for a period of one month from 01.10.2011 to 03.11.2011. The evidence of P.W-2 shows that the management of the school did not pay any amount to the appellant towards leave salary and medical reimbursement. Ex.A-8 shows that the appellant was receiving a sum of Rs.10,004/-per month towards salary as Teacher. In that view of the mater, the appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.11,000/-towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, as he would get the said amount towards salary for the period from 01.10.2011 to 03.11.2011 (33 days) had accident not been occurred. 31. In view of finding on point No.1, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any amount towards compensation under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 32. P.W-3 in the cross-examination of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company deposed that the patient was discharged after healing of the would completely. He did not depose that the claimant requires further treatment. In that view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to any amount under the head future medical expenses. 33. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages (general damages), the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges, Rs.8,000/-towards attendant charges. Hence, the total amount entitled by the appellant/claimant towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure is Rs.79,440 + 5,000 + 1,000 + 8,000 = Rs.93,440/-. 34. 33. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages (general damages), the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges, Rs.8,000/-towards attendant charges. Hence, the total amount entitled by the appellant/claimant towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure is Rs.79,440 + 5,000 + 1,000 + 8,000 = Rs.93,440/-. 34. The evidence of the doctor/P.W-3 shows that the claimant suffered two grievous injuries i.e., 1.Lisfranc’s left foot; 2.Compound injury of left foot with 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th proximal phalynx, and the claimant was operated for the purpose of amputation and for internal fixation of k-wires for left foot as he sustained fracture of ankle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-towards pain, suffering and trauma and Rs.36,000/-towards grievous injuries, and also awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-towards mental agony, though the amount has to be awarded under the head damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. The Tribunal has split this head into various sub-heads like pain and suffering, grievous injuries and mental agony. It is pertinent to note down that the Tribunal delivered judgment on 03.02.2016. The Hon’ble Apex Court delivered judgment in Raj Kumar’s case on 18.10.2010. It appears that the Tribunal below is not aware of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the heads under which the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases. 35. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-towards shock and agony covered by this head. The Tribunal as stated supra, awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/-. 36. In the light of evidence of the doctor, which establish that the claimant has suffered two grievous injuries and underwent surgery to the said injuries. He might have suffered a lot of pain on account of injuries and surgery. Considering the same, I do not find any ground to interfere with the amount i.e., Rs.52,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 37. Regarding loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life, the contention of the claimant is that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to do his day to day activities and depending on his kith and kin. 37. Regarding loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life, the contention of the claimant is that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to do his day to day activities and depending on his kith and kin. The evidence of the doctor shows that the appellant suffered two grievous injuries, and as a result a k-wire was fixed in the right leg for the fracture of the ankle, and further, 3rd, 4th and 5th of the right leg were amputated due to crush injury. The doctor further deposed that due to amputation patient suffered permanent disability. Hence, the appellant would feel some inconvenience in his day to day life, while attending duty as Teacher, since he has to stand sometimes during teaching in the class, and moving in and around in the class, on account of amputation. He may not do those activities comfortably as he was doing earlier to the accident. 38. Therefore, the physical activities of the appellant will be restricted to some extent during standing or walking, though he is able to work as a Teacher, which he was doing earlier. Hence, he is entitled to some compensation under the head loss of amenities as a consequence of amputation to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers of right leg. 39. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I feel that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(2 Lakhs) can be awarded towards compensation under the head for the loss of amenities, in addition to the above amounts awarded. 40. Regarding loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity), it is not the case of the appellant/claimant that his longevity period is reduced on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, he is not entitled to any amount under this head. 41. In the light of above discussion, the claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.3,63,400/-towards just compensation. Accordingly, this point is answered 42. POINT NO.3: To what relief? 43. The contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the driver of the auto was not having a valid license at the time of accident. 41. In the light of above discussion, the claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.3,63,400/-towards just compensation. Accordingly, this point is answered 42. POINT NO.3: To what relief? 43. The contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the driver of the auto was not having a valid license at the time of accident. The Insurance Company has examined R.W-2 in support of its contention and marked Ex.X-2 in his evidence i.e., extract of license register of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department pertaining to the license issued in favour of the driver of the auto. R.W-2 in his evidence deposed that a person can drive an auto rickshaw only when he holds a license to drive auto rickshaw and as per Ex.X-2, the driver was having light motor vehicle non-transport motor cycle with gear and motor can driving license and he was also having badge and on the date of accident, he was not having a license to drive the transport vehicle. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the driver has to first obtain light motor vehicle non-transport driving license and subsequently, he has to obtain auto rickshaw non-transport license and driver has capacity to drive auto rickshaw transport vehicle and driver has also got capacity to drive auto rickshaw transport passenger vehicle. 44. Ex.X-2 shows that the driver in the case was holding light motor vehicle non-transport license apart from he is having a badge to drive a motor cab. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal below applied pay and recovery principle against the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and others, 2017 (8) SCC 590 , held that “driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement.” In that view of the matter, there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect. 46. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. I do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 47. 46. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. I do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 47. In the light of above discussion and in view of the findings on points No.1 to 3, the appeal has to be allowed partly. 48. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the impugned order is set aside. It is held that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,63,400/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand and Four Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to costs. 49. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed firstly to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,63,400/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand and Four Hundred only) with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already having had deposited some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment, and later can recover from the owner of the crime vehicle in the same proceedings as per law. On such deposit the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. 50. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.