ORDER : 1. The injured/claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 576 of 2004 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.05.2006, in so far as it is adverse to the appellant/claimant. 2. Heard Mr. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 3. The appellant/claimant, who is a house wife filed M.V.O.P. No. 576 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 23.01.2004. In the O.P. it was averred that when the appellant/claimant was proceeding on foot and reached near the vicinity of Annapurna Theatre Canteen, Palakol, the driver of a lorry bearing No. AP-31B-2748 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant from behind. As a result of the same, the appellant sustained fracture to her both legs and multiple injuries all over the body. The appellant was shifted to hospital at Bheemavaram, where she was treated as in-patient for three months and undergone two major surgeries for both legs, steel rods were inserted in the left leg, skin grafting was also done to the injuries and as a result of the said accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability. 4. The appellant in support of her case examined as PW-1 and also PWs. 2 to 4-Doctors who had treated her. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent died. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident allegedly occurred. It was alleged that the appellant/claimant herself contributed to the accident by suddenly attempting to cross the road without observing the crime vehicle. The averments with regard to surgeries undergone by the appellant/claimant, the amounts spent by her towards medical treatment/surgeries etc. and the permanent disability due to the accident etc., were denied by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 6. The Claims Tribunal by an order and decree dated 31.05.2006 allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as against the total claim of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 6. The Claims Tribunal by an order and decree dated 31.05.2006 allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as against the total claim of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal came to be filed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, inter-alia, submits that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager, unjust and unreasonable. He submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant are grievous in nature and the evidence on record would clearly establish that the appellant has undergone two major surgeries and steel rods were implanted. He further submits that the Doctors PWs. 2 to 4 who treated the appellant/claimant gave evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant and as per Ex.A.12 the disability is assessed at 40%. Despite ample material on record, the learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only Rs. 80,000/-. The learned counsel while relying on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sri. Anthony alias Anthony Swamy vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. 2020 (3) SCC (CIV), Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, 2014 (3) SCC (CIV), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager vs. T. Laxman Goud and Others, (2014) Supreme (AP) 1134, Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2021 (2) SCC 166 submits that the appellant/claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation, more particularly, in the light of the injuries sustained by her, which are grievous in nature and the disabilities suffered, as a result of the accident. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submits that the amount of compensation as awarded is just and reasonable, and warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant is not permanent disability, but only partial disability. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 20,000/- towards the same. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of both the counsel and perused oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Claims Tribunal while answering issue No. 1 had recorded a categorical finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. 20,000/- towards the same. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of both the counsel and perused oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Claims Tribunal while answering issue No. 1 had recorded a categorical finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. With reference to Issue No. 2 regarding the compensation as claimed by the appellant/claimant, a perusal of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal would go to show that categorical findings were recorded with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, which are grievous in nature and the treatment taken by the appellant/claimant in the hospitals at Bhimavaram initially and Vijaya Orthopedic Care Hospital, Palakol subsequently. Various contentions advanced on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company were rejected. 10. At Paras 28 and 29 of the order, the Claims Tribunal referred to the contentions advanced by the claimant and given its cogent reasons while arriving at the conclusions. The Claims Tribunal also referred to the various Exhibits supporting the case of the appellant/claimant with regard to the bills issued by the Hospital and the genuineness of the same. 11. Despite referring to various Exhibits in proof of the injuries sustained, expenses incurred for treatment and recording findings in favour of the appellant/claimant, the Claims Tribunal while dealing with the claim for compensation towards Pain and Suffering at Para 31 of the order held as follows: “Para 31: The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this Head. However the total amount covered by the bills roughly come to Rs. 42,000/-. A major bill of Rs. 20,000/- was issued by PW-4 Dr. N. Muralidhara Rao. Except this major bill and another bill for Rs. 9,400/- issued by Bhimavaram Hospitals the other bills are for smaller amounts. PW-4 however admitted his accounts did not disclose that he issued a bill for Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner. Of course PW-4 gave treatment to the petitioner. He should have charged petitioner for the expenses incurred for conducting surgery. So taking this aspect into consideration and further treatment required to the petitioner and considering the bills filed by petitioner an amount of Rs. 35,000/- is granted under this Head which will meet ends of justice.” 12. The amount of Rs. He should have charged petitioner for the expenses incurred for conducting surgery. So taking this aspect into consideration and further treatment required to the petitioner and considering the bills filed by petitioner an amount of Rs. 35,000/- is granted under this Head which will meet ends of justice.” 12. The amount of Rs. 35,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, in the light of ample material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just or reasonable, more particularly, as the injuries are grievous in nature and it is not in dispute that steel rods were inserted after conducting two surgeries. As per the evidence of PW-2 Dr. V.V.J. Soma Raju, the appellant sustained the following injuries: (i) 15 cm. long bone deep laceration across lower third of left leg with active bleeding. (ii) Tenderness over lateral aspect of left leg over middle third. (iii) 3 cm. laceration in fourth web force of left foot. (iv) Swelling and tenderness over right foot. (v) Comminuted fracture of distal fifth of left tibia. (vi) Transverse fracture shaft of left tibia. (vii) Fracture base of second, third and fourth metatarsals of right foot. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that after four months of the appellant’s operation, the fracture was not united and she was advised for bone-grafting surgery. In the cross examination, he has categorically denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant noted in the case sheet were not true and that he has not conducted the operation. 13. PW-3 Dr. N. Muralidhara Rao another Doctor in his evidence categorically stated about the surgery conducted by him on 03.01.2005 and fixation of plate and screws and also bone-grafting to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant awarding of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering is not just and accordingly the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant/claimant. 14. With regard to disability sustained by the appellant/claimant it may be relevant to refer to evidence of PW-4, who worked as Senior Assistant Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and was a Member of District Medical Board. In his evidence, he had categorically stated that the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant is 40% and the disability is permanent in nature. In his evidence, he had categorically stated that the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant is 40% and the disability is permanent in nature. He also deposed that the appellant will have difficulty in attending heavy duties and day-to-day activities. In the cross examination, he had denied the suggestion that the disability is not permanent in nature. He had also denied the suggestion that the appellant will not have difficulty in attending heavy duties and day-to-day activities. The Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation under the Head “Permanent Disability” which was claimed at Rs. 1,00,000/- arrived at the conclusions contrary to the evidence on record. At Para 33, the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the disability sustained by the appellant/claimant is not a permanent disability, but it is a partial disability. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and awarding of amount of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of the said finding, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not tenable. Though the appellant/claimant has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this Head, keeping in view the disability as certified by the concerned Medical Board, the amount of compensation has to be arrived at, which should be just and reasonable. 15. As the petitioner is a house wife, keeping in view her services to the family and in the light of expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 1991, it is deemed appropriate to assess the compensation having regard to the services of the appellant to the family. In said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 16. In the judgment of Supreme Court in Kirti and Another’s case (supra), which is in respect of death of the house wife in a road accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 10 observed as follows: “Para 10: The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a house-maker undertakes. A house-maker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and it surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more. In rural households, they often also assist in the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in the field, apart from tending cattle.” 17. In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra) the learned Single Judge was dealing with the case of death of a house wife in a road accident and while disposing of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company allowed the appeal filed by the claimants in part. In Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that the injured is entitled to compensation over three (03) months period of medical treatment due to the injuries sustained by him and future prospects were taken into consideration while arriving at the compensation. 18. Though the appellant/claimant is a house wife, due to the injuries sustained by her, certainly she would not be in a position to extend her services to the family and the same needs to be appropriately compensated. Accordingly, taking the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- and the disability of 40% the compensation is arrived at by adopting the multiplier of 18 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 as follows: 3000 x 12 x 18 x 40/100 = Rs. 2,59,200/- 19. Further, in tune with the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 the appellant/claimant is entitled for loss of amenities and future medical expenses. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under these Heads. The Claims Tribunal in respect of medical bills observed that the total amount covered by the bills roughly comes to Rs. 42,000/- but awarded an amount of Rs. 35,000/- only including for further treatment, which in the opinion of this Court is not tenable. In the light of the material on record it is evident that the appellant/claimant had undergone two major surgeries. 42,000/- but awarded an amount of Rs. 35,000/- only including for further treatment, which in the opinion of this Court is not tenable. In the light of the material on record it is evident that the appellant/claimant had undergone two major surgeries. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 42,000/- covered by the bills has to be awarded. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the following amounts towards compensation: Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 42,000/- Permanent disability Rs. 2,59,200/- Loss of amenities and future medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- Thus in all, the claimant is entitled for a total amount Rs. 5,01,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 20. Though the appellant/claimant has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 11495 of 2018 just and reasonable compensation can be awarded. However, appellant/claimant has to pay the requisite Court Fees over and above the amount claimed and awarded. The amount of compensation as enhanced shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. 21. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed, as indicated above. No costs. 22. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.