JUDGMENT : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel. 2. The present M.A.C.M.A. No. 309 of 2006 arise out of award rendered by VIII Additional District Judge (FTC)-cum-Chairman, M.A.C. Tribunal, Chittoor, dated 26.04.2005 in M.V.O.P. No. 393 of 1999. The claimant is the driver in APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-9-Z-8738. The accident was on account of the collusion between two buses one belonging to respondent No. 3 (APSRTC) driven by the claimant/appellant and other bus bearing No. AP-03-U-1222 owned by the respondent no. 1 herein namely C.M.T. Company represented by its Managing Partner C.S. Suresh. 3. Both were coming in the opposite direction when the collusion took place. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Somala has registered a case bearing Crime No. 84 of 1998 against the claimant/appellant herein. 4. The claimant/appellant was aged 42 years on the date of occurrence. He contended that he received multiple injuries, and therefore, took treatment from 13.10.1998 to 07.11.1998 as impatient in S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati. He underwent major operation on his right leg and that steel plates were inserted and bone grafting also has taken place and that even on the date of filing of the claim petition he has been under treatment. He also contended that the criminal case filed against him ended in acquittal. 5. The version of the respondent no. 1 is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant/appellant. That the collusion has happened on account of the negligence of the petitioner resulted in causing injury not only to the petitioner, the injuries to several others and also loss of life in respect of one passenger in the bus owned by the respondent no. 1. It was also contended by the respondent no. 1 that the claimant/appellant cannot allow to take undue advantage of his own negligent acts and that the acquittal in criminal case, if any, cannot come to his benefit. 6. The respondent no. 3, the employer of the claimant stated that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent no. 1, and therefore, the respondent no. 3 cannot be passed with any liability to pay compensation. 7. The claimant has relied on Ex.A3 which is the permanent disability certificate indicating permanent disability of an accident of 30%. He also claims loss of income on account of the sustained treatment that he has undergone. 1, and therefore, the respondent no. 3 cannot be passed with any liability to pay compensation. 7. The claimant has relied on Ex.A3 which is the permanent disability certificate indicating permanent disability of an accident of 30%. He also claims loss of income on account of the sustained treatment that he has undergone. He had also stated that he has spent about Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical treatment and that he underwent three surgeries that on 14.10.1998, 23.10.1998 and 26.10.1998 in S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati. In order to substantiate his contention he had examined PW-2, who is Assistant Professor in S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati. The said witness deposed that apart from minor injuries, for the more serious injuries sustained by the claimant, he was treated by PW-2 and he had deposed that (PW-1) underwent surgery three times; that the first surgery was performed on the heel for the repair of tendon; the second surgery was performed on the left leg under general anaesthesia and the third one was performed on right thigh and rod was implanted. The said witness namely PW-2 also stated that he was admitted in S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati on 13.10.1998 and was discharged on 09.11.1998. 8. In support of his contention, the claimant had filed certified copies of FIR (Ex.A1) in Crime No. 84 of 1999, Motor Vehicle Inspector report, permanent disability certificate, C.C. of Judgment in C.C. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of J.M.F.C. Punganur and discharge summary. The case sheet record of the hospital was also filed Ex.X1. None one examined, nor any documents filed on behalf of the respondents. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned VIII Additional District Judge (FTC)-cum-Chairman, M.A.C. Tribunal, Chittoor had granted a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. Being aggrieved of the said award rendered by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 11. His contention is that the liability of contributory negligence ought not to have pass end/peasant to him on 50% basis by invoking the principle/number of contributory negligence. 12. This Court has gone through the contents of the award and a reasoning given in the award as regards the role of the claimant/appellant. Insofar as, the occurrence as well as the injuries sustained by him and the medical treatment taken by the claimant there is no dispute. 13. 12. This Court has gone through the contents of the award and a reasoning given in the award as regards the role of the claimant/appellant. Insofar as, the occurrence as well as the injuries sustained by him and the medical treatment taken by the claimant there is no dispute. 13. It is not borne out from the Judgment that the claim has let any evidence against the bus driver of the respondent no. 1 to prove that he was negligence. 14. The Judgment under appeal also has noted the fact that a criminal case was registered against the claimant. It is also be noted that the claimant has not let any evidence that he has made acquitted in the criminal case filed against him, nor was able to establish that he demoted and that he was not paid salary during nine months period. He has neither filed any office records nor has examined any person from the office of the respondent no. 3/APSRTC. 15. However, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents with a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 (The New India Assurance Company Limited and A.P.S.R.T.C.) to pay compensation of 50:50% basis. This includes compensation for pain and suffering and for deprivation of pleasure as well as amenities in life due to permanent disability caused by fracture. Cost of medical treatment was also granted which is included in the compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 16. In support of the claim, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of Chalapaka Suresh vs. B. Sankara Rao and Others, 2022 (1) ALT 39 (S.B.) to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel has referred to Para 32 of the said Judgment to indicate that the Court can refer the case of the claimants to a medical board for assessing loss of earning capacity. This Judgment is of no award to the appellant simple reason that the Tribunal has categorical finding that the claimant himself has failed to leave evidence with regard to reduction in pay even for a period of nine months. 17. In Para 34 of the impugned order is extracted below: 34. I have gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly, PW-1 is a driver of RTC. 17. In Para 34 of the impugned order is extracted below: 34. I have gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly, PW-1 is a driver of RTC. In cross examination by R.2, PW-1 has clearly admitted that he is still in service. When he is in service, question of losing income does not arise. It is not the case of PW-1 that he lost the job of driver due to his inability to drive on account of the disability. There is no evidence to show that PW-1 is demoted to the lower post. The evidence of PW-1 shows that due to the accident, he lost 9 months salary and he filed 9 salary bills marked as Ex.A7. But, PW-1 failed to examine the concerned person from R.T.C. to prove that he was not paid salary at all during 9 months period, with reference to relevant office records. In the absence of documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner sustained loss of income. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has also cited Judgment of this Court in Thogati Veeranjaneyulu vs. Syed Basha and Another, 2022 (1) ALT 161 (S.B.) to substantiate the compensation to be awarded under heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 19. In the present case, the compensation awarded by the tribunal for loss of pain and suffering an amount of Rs.40,000/- is just and reasonable and hence would not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court, the findings rendered by Para 12 of the Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 330 relating to the heads under which compensation should be assessed. For the sake of convenience, the said Para 12 is extracted herein. Having gone through the contents of the Judgment mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation which has been awarded to the claimant/appellant under various heads is reasonable and does not call for any interfere in view of the fact that tribunal has given a categorical finding that the negligence was contributory in nature. 20. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents cited Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K.V. Brothers (P) Limited vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1354 to indicate that it does not prevent civil court by drawing adverse inference by negligent by a person against whom a criminal case for rash and negligent driving has ended in an acquittal. 21. In view of the findings of this Court as mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings rendered by the Tribunal do not call for any interference, particularly for the reasoning given by the Tribunal has negligence on the part of the claim has not been disprove. 22. Having gone through the contents of the Judgment under appeal and also noting done the facts mentioned therein, this Court is unable to fathom as to how 50% contributory negligence has been fastened to the bus belonging to respondent no. 1 while no evidence has been adduced against the driver of belonging to the respondent no. 1 to prove that the driver of the said bus bearing No. AP-03-U-1222 was negligent. The Tribunal, ought not to have passing any liability of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent no. 1, when there is no material on record to substantiate the same. However, since there is no appeal preferred by respondent no. 1/C.M.T. Company represented by its Managing Partner C.S. Suresh, the finding of 50% of contributory negligence were the driver of both the parties has rendered by the Tribunal is sustained. In view of the findings given by the Tribunal and reasoning thereof, this Court is of a considered opinion that claimant/appellant has not made out a case for interference. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.