ORDER : 1. Questioning the Award dated 12.01.2017 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge Chittoor in M.V.O.P. No. 58 of 2014, the appellant, who is shown as 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P. filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for 1st respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein filed M.V.O.P. No. 58 of 2014 before the lower Tribunal under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident. The averments made in the claim petition are that on 13.08.2012, at about 9.45 a.m. near Punepalle on Chittoor-Penumur Road, while the 1st respondent along with one Mr. Balaji were proceeding towards Chittoor in their motor cycle and when their motor cycle reached Ramareddipalem of Punepalle and by that time the driver of dairy van bearing Registration No. AP 03 U 5862 drove the same in a high speed and dashed the 1st respondent motor cycle, as a result, the 1st respondent and Mr. Balaji fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Later the 1st respondent shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and again shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. He incurred huge expenses towards treatment and medicines. Thus, he claimed total compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000. Appellant herein filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The averments made in the counter were that the 1st respondent not added insurer and insured of his motor cycle as parties and hence the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and further the accident took place due to the negligence driving of the 1st respondent, but not the driver of crime vehicle and the claim of the 1st respondent is very high and excessive and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the averments, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing Registration No. AP 03 U 5862 of 1st respondent (2nd respondent herein) or the rider of motor cycle No. AP 03 5878? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief? 5. In support of the claim petition, PW-1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, no oral evidence was adduced, except marked the document as Ex.B-1. 6. Taking into consideration, entire material on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,61,423/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent in the above M.V.O.P. filed the present Appeal. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of 2nd respondent. It is further contended that the 1st respondent not added insurer and insured of his motor cycle as parties in the claim petition and hence the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed on record the decisions in Vijayaraja and Others vs. P. Sekar and Another, 2017 ACJ 1674 , Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts assessed the income of the injured and granted compensation. Basing on the above said decisions the learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court to allow the appeal partly by reducing the income of the injured to Rs. 6,000/- per month from Rs. 12,000/- per month and also reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. 9. It is the evidence of PW-1 that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and he was working as electrician and getting Rs. 12,000/- per month, but no document is filed to prove his contention. But the learned Tribunal relied on a decision reported in Neeta and Others vs. Divisional Manager, MSRT Corporation, 2015 ACJ 598 wherein it was held that the skilled labour is entitled for Rs. 12,000/- per month and hence the income of the 1st respondent is fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per month. But the learned Tribunal relied on a decision reported in Neeta and Others vs. Divisional Manager, MSRT Corporation, 2015 ACJ 598 wherein it was held that the skilled labour is entitled for Rs. 12,000/- per month and hence the income of the 1st respondent is fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Further the age of the 1st respondent is mentioned in the claim petition as 33 years. As per multiplier that could be applied in this case is ‘16’ as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others (cited supra). Further PW-2 who is doctor assessed the disability of the petitioner as 46%. Therefore the income of the petitioner is assessed Rs. 12,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,44,000/-. Rs. 1,44,000/- x 16 x 46% = 10,59,840/- totaling Rs. 10,59,840/- which the 1st respondent is entitled to. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the 1st respondent and damages. Therefore the decisions submitted by the appellant are no way helpful to the appellant in the present appeal. 10. This court perused the entire evidence on record. The 1st respondent claimant was examined as PW-1. It is he, who received injuries in the said accident. He deposed the way in which the accident took place and in support of his claim he filed Exhibit A-1, copy of FIR and Exhibit A-4 copy of Charge Sheet. In both Exhibit A-1 and A-4, wherein it is specifically mentioned by the investigating agency that 1st respondent in the M.V.O.P. drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As such, after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet under Exhibit A-4. Considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exhibit A-1 and A-4, it can safely be held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 in the M.V.O.P. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the 1st respondent received two grievous injuries and one simple injury as per Ex.A-2 Wound Certificate. Further, the first respondent filed medical bills under Exhibit A-5 and Disability Certificate under Exhibit A-6. PW-2 Dr. Y. Devadas/Doctor was examined the injured and assessed the disability of the 1st respondent to that of 46%. Exhibit A-6 is the Disability Certificate, which supports the version of PW-2. Taking into consideration the entire evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,61,423/-. Further, the first respondent filed medical bills under Exhibit A-5 and Disability Certificate under Exhibit A-6. PW-2 Dr. Y. Devadas/Doctor was examined the injured and assessed the disability of the 1st respondent to that of 46%. Exhibit A-6 is the Disability Certificate, which supports the version of PW-2. Taking into consideration the entire evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,61,423/-. Viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P. No. 58 of 2014 dated 12.01.2017. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.