JUDGMENT : 1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 07.11.2006, passed in O.P.No.818 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII-Additional District Judge), Nizamabad, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The facts, in brief, are as under: 3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 13.05.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. It is stated that on that day, the appellant, along with others, was boarded the Auto bearing No. A.P 25 T 6051 and when the Auto reached near Jakranpalli Village Thanda, the driver of the said Auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed one Nunavath Pram Kumar, who was going on a cycle towards Padkal Thanda, and thereafter to a bullock cart and the Auto was turned turtle, as a result of which, the appellant and other inmates of the Auto sustained injuries. The appellant filed claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Auto. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed written statement denying the contentions of the appellant. It is admitted by the 1st respondent that he is the owner of the Auto, which was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and in case any compensation is granted, the same will be paid by the 2nd respondent. 5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim-petition and the compensation claimed is exorbitant, baseless and against law and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. A.P 25 T 6051 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, what just amount and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the Doctors, who treated the appellant, as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-Insurance Policy Copy was marked. 8. If so, what just amount and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the Doctors, who treated the appellant, as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-Insurance Policy Copy was marked. 8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Auto was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,49,400/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. He also submits that the evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A7, Disability Certificate, amply established that the appellant has sustained 70% permanent disability as his right hand was amputated. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per annum without considering the age and avocation of the appellant and, therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 10. Vide Order, dated 21.04.2017, the case against the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the Auto, was dismissed. 11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference. 12. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either owner or insurer of the vehicle. 13. The short question that arises for consideration is “whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable”? 14. In order to establish his case, the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctors, who treated him, as P.Ws.2 and 3. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A7. As per Ex.A3-Wound Certificate, the appellant has sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury in the accident. A perusal of Ex.A7, Disability Certificate discloses that the appellant has sustained disability at 70% as his right leg was amputated. 15. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A7. As per Ex.A3-Wound Certificate, the appellant has sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury in the accident. A perusal of Ex.A7, Disability Certificate discloses that the appellant has sustained disability at 70% as his right leg was amputated. 15. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, MACD 2011 (SC) 33 held as under: “5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : 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 as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 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. 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. 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. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b).” 16. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident. 17. As seen from the record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.1,500/- for one simple injury; Rs.11,900/- towards medical expenses; Rs.1,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.1,000/-towards transport and other miscellaneous expenses. 18. Insofar as the amount awarded under the head of loss of future income, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and also erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the said amount. 19. Admittedly, the right hand of the appellant/claimant was amputated. P.W.3-Doctor, who examined the appellant and issued Ex.A7-disability certificate, stated that the claimant has sustained 70% disability. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be doubted. 20. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the functional disability sustained by the appellant at 70%. 21. In view of nature of disability sustained, the appellant is entitled to loss of earnings due to disability. The injured being an able bodied person aged about 32 years, doing Hamali work and also milk vendor work and as the accident took place in the year 2002, his monthly income can easily be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month in view of the minimum wages prevailing during the said period. If the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, the annual income would be Rs.36,000/-. If the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, the annual income would be Rs.36,000/-. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.36,000/- per annum, the loss of income sustained by the appellant with the disability at 70% would be Rs.25,200/- per annum. In view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the suitable multiplier to be adopted for calculating the loss of earnings would be ‘16’. Therefore, the loss of earnings on account of his disability would be Rs.25,200/- x 16 = Rs.4,03,200/-. Further, a perusal of the order would show that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of pain and suffering. Since the appellant has sustained 70% of permanent disability and as per the evidence of P.W.2, the appellant took treatment as an in-patient in Deepa Orthopaedic Hospital, Nizamabad from 13.05.2002 to 30.05.2002, he must have suffered some discomfort during the treatment period and also after the treatment and as such the appellant is entitled some amount under the head of pain and suffering. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the appellant/claimant is entitled the following amount under various heads. Sl. No. Name of Head Awarded by Tribunal Rs. Ps. Awarded by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Grievous injury 15,000.00 20,000.00 2. Simple injury 1,500.00 3,000.00 3. Pain and suffering 50,000.00 4. Medical expenses 11,900.00 11,900.00 5. Loss of income during treatment period 1,000.00 1,500.00 6. Transport charges and other miscellaneous expenses 1,000.00 5,000.00 7. Loss of future earnings (Rs.25,200/- x 16) 1,19,000.00 Rs.4,03,200.00 Total: 1,49,400.00 Rs.4,94,600.00 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,49,400/- to Rs.4,94,600/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed by the Tribunal i.e., 07.11.2006 till the date of realization, payable by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.