JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 04.04.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.360/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,43,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 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 petitioner filed an application U/s.140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.03.2013. 4. The facts show that on 15.03.2013 at about 07.30 p.m. while the claimant was waiting to board a vehicle at Kistaram Centre on State High Way, B.T.Road, at that time, one Tipper bearing No.AP 20 TA 7524 coming from Sathupalli towards Khammam driver by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and without following the traffic rules, hit the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained fractures to his both legs and other injuries all over the body and the injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where his both legs were amputated upto knee. The accident was reported to Sathupalli P.S. and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.89/2013 for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said tipper. The petitioner was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and he used to work as a mason mastry earning Rs.450/-per day. Due to the accident, the petitioner received severe fracture injuries and became a disabled person, in addition to mental agony and suffering besides losing his earning capacity. 5. The petitioner was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and he used to work as a mason mastry earning Rs.450/-per day. Due to the accident, the petitioner received severe fracture injuries and became a disabled person, in addition to mental agony and suffering besides losing his earning capacity. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to the manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, avocation and monthly earnings of the injured, alleged permanent disability, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the said vehicle is not involved in the accident and that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the tipper, and that the 1st respondent handed over the said vehicle to the driver, who was not having an effective driving license, as such, the 1st respondent violated the policy conditions. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The alleged amputation was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident and only due to non-obtaining of proper medical care and treatment and as such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation for the said injuries. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP 20 TA 7524 and caused injuries to Bikyam China Venkateswarlu @ Venkateswarlu? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 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-5 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1 held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper driver, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,43,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. 9. This is an appeal filed by the claimant contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/-per day without considering the fact that he was working as mason and earning Rs.450/-per day at the time of accident, and thereby the Tribunal failed to award just compensation under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimant? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: The contention of the appellant is that he is working as a mason in Guntur City of Andhra Pradesh and earning Rs.450/-per day at the time of accident; on 15.03.2013 at about 07.30 p.m. he was waiting for on the State Highway, B.T.Road, to board a vehicle to go to home; a Tipper bearing No.AP 20 TE 7524 was coming from Sattupalli side going towards Khammam; the 3rd respondent is the driver, and he drove the tipper in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, dashed the petitioner; he sustained injuries to both legs and shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur; the both legs of the claimant were amputated upto the level of knee; police registered a case against the 3rd respondent for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code. 12. The claimant became a disabled person due to amputation of both legs upto the level of knee due to the injuries sustained in the accident, and thereby he suffered 100% partial permanent disability. He lost his earning capacity, as he cannot do mason work and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 13. The claimant contended that as mason he was earning Rs.450/-per day, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation accordingly. But, the Tribunal considered his income only at Rs.150/-per day, which is very low and meagre. 14. 13. The claimant contended that as mason he was earning Rs.450/-per day, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation accordingly. But, the Tribunal considered his income only at Rs.150/-per day, which is very low and meagre. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was working as mason in urban area i.e., Guntur City which is one of the biggest cities in Andhra Pradesh State, and the Tribunal did not consider this fact while fixing the income of the claimant, and he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of Saritha and others Vs. Siva and another in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019 contending that the evidence in the case on hand shows that the deceased was working as a mason in Guntur urban area at the time of the accident in the year 2013, and therefore, fixing his income at Rs.150/-per day by the Tribunal is not proper and correct, and submitted that the Tribunal has to consider the place of work also, while fixing the income of the claimant. 15. The evidence of claimant would show that he was a resident of 5th lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur, and he was working as a mason at the time of accident. In the written statement filed by the respondent/Insurance Company, there is no specific denial of this fact. In the cross-examination of P.W-1 also, it was not denied. Therefore, it would establish that the claimant is a resident of Guntur, and was working as a mason in Guntur at the time of accident. Guntur city is an urban area, and one of the developed cities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 16. The contention of the claimant is that he was earning Rs.450/-per day as mason at the time of accident. The accident occurred in the year 2013. The Tribunal in its order while fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/-per day, held that “hence, considering the age of petitioner as 30 years and also disability at 100%, and basing on the ground realities, a person who is aged about 30 years, who was hale and healthy can easily earn a sum of Rs.150/-per day. The Tribunal in its order while fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/-per day, held that “hence, considering the age of petitioner as 30 years and also disability at 100%, and basing on the ground realities, a person who is aged about 30 years, who was hale and healthy can easily earn a sum of Rs.150/-per day. Hence, the income of the petitioner for a month would come to a sum of Rs.4,500/-.” The Tribunal did not consider anything about the place of work, nature of work and demand of the work etc., while fixing the income of the claimant. 17. The High Court of Madras in the case of Saritha and others Vs. Siva and another in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019 at para 16 held as follows: “Therefore, it may not be possible on some occasions to follow the particular judgment delivered by the High Courts or the Supreme Court. Judgments may be outdated or delivered some years back or the facts and circumstances in that particular judgment may not be much applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the Courts are bound to consider the judgments with reference to the facts and circumstances as well as the prevailing situation. Mechanical approach in application of judgments are also not proper. Thus, for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a particular amount fixed in a particular case need not be passed in a routine manner. Once the facts and circumstances are different, then the yardstick to be adopted also to be different.” 18. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.150/-per day, ignoring his place of work, nature of work and the demand per his work in the year 2013. If those factors are taken into consideration, the income of the claimant would be minimum at Rs.250/-per day, considering the fact that the claimant was working as a mason in Guntur City at the time of accident. 19. The claimant has examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W-2. His evidence would establish that the claimant suffered the following injuries: 1. Crush injury right leg segmental fracture fibula. 2. Crush injury left leg with fracture calcaneum. 20. P.W-2 evidence further established that amputation was done for both lower limbs, and patient suffered permanent partial disability of 100%. 19. The claimant has examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W-2. His evidence would establish that the claimant suffered the following injuries: 1. Crush injury right leg segmental fracture fibula. 2. Crush injury left leg with fracture calcaneum. 20. P.W-2 evidence further established that amputation was done for both lower limbs, and patient suffered permanent partial disability of 100%. He further deposed that patient cannot do hard labour, and he can walk only with artificial limbs. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he can do only work in sitting posture. Therefore, P.W-2 evidence would establish that the claimant cannot do hard labour work like work of mason, which requires standing for considerable period in a day. 21. The claimant also examined a Member of District Medical Board, Guntur, as P.W-3. He deposed about Ex.A-5 disability certificate issued by the Board. P.W-3 evidence would establish that he is one of the Member of the Board, which issued Ex.A-5 and as per the opinion of the Board, the claimant suffered permanent disability of 100% due to the amputation of both legs, and claimant can do work only in sitting posture. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-3 corroborates the evidence of claimant and P.W-2 that claimant suffered 100% permanent disability on account of which, he cannot do mason work, which he was doing prior to the date of accident. Therefore, the evidence on record established that the claimant suffered loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. Hence, he is entitled to compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 22. When coming to the quantum of compensation for loss of future earnings, this Court opined supra that his income at the time of accident on established facts would be minimum at Rs.250/-per day. Therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.250 x 30 = Rs.7,500/-per month, and his annual income would be Rs.7,500 x 12 = Rs.90,000/-. 23. The contention of the claimant that he was aged 30 years at the time of accident. The contention of the respondent/Insurance Company is that, he did not adduce any evidenced to prove the age. Ex.A-5 disability certificate shows the age of the claimant as 32 years, which was issued in the year 2013. Ex.A-4 wound certificate would show his age as 30 years. Therefore, his age can be considered as 30 years at the time of accident. Ex.A-5 disability certificate shows the age of the claimant as 32 years, which was issued in the year 2013. Ex.A-4 wound certificate would show his age as 30 years. Therefore, his age can be considered as 30 years at the time of accident. Hence, multiplier ‘17’ be applied as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298 . 24. The amount of compensation entitled by the claimant under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability would be Rs.90,000 x 17 = Rs.15,30,000/-. 25. The appellant made a claim for Rs.10,000/-for pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport and other expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-towards transportation charges and other expenses. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. Therefore, the total amount of compensation entitled by the appellant under all the above heads would come to Rs.15,55,000/-. The appellant made claim for Rs.15,00,000/-only. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.15,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.15,55,000/-. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 27. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimant, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs.15,55,000/-towards just compensation. 28. 27. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimant, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs.15,55,000/-towards just compensation. 28. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 29. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of the finding on point No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated 04.04.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.360/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Guntur. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,55,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.9,43,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Three Thousand only). The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.15,55,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. 31. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.