JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 447/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,41,377/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, 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, the petitioner filed the application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.01.2010. 4. The facts would show that on 30.01.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. when the petitioner was coming on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-30B-9023 and at about 01.00 p.m. the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing No. WB 23B 0832, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which the petitioner fell down and lorry front wheel ran over on petitioner’s left hand, and he received multiple crush injuries on his left hand, stomach, abdomen, penny, both knees, both hands, head, left foot and injuries on other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to Palasa Hospital from which, he was taken to Kanakadurga Hospital Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, and he underwent major operation, and left hand was amputated, and took treatment for about one month as in-patient and since then, he is taking treatment as out-patient, and he met Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses, besides extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner is doing cultivation and mason work, and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 5. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses, besides extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner is doing cultivation and mason work, and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that there is violation of terms of policy by owner, and the driver is not having valid driving license at relevant point of time, and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioner himself got confused, and dashed the crime vehicle, which resulted the accident. The petitioner being agriculturist, there is no loss of income for him. The injuries sustained by the petitioner have not adversely affected his earnings, and they are simple in nature. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle Lorry bearing No. WB 23/B 0831, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry only, and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-14, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,41,377/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 9. This an appeal filed by the claimant against the order dated 04.07.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 447/2010 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-14, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,41,377/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 9. This an appeal filed by the claimant against the order dated 04.07.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 447/2010 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam, on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation, though left hand of the appellant/claimant was amputated due to the injury sustained in the accident, and he lost earning capacity due to amputation of the left hand. 10. In the light of above contentions raised in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the appellant/claimant? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No. 1: The case of the appellant/claimant is that he is owning Ac. 10-00 of agricultural land, and he is cultivating agricultural land, and also working as mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and while so, on 30.01.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. while he was going on his motor cycle, and at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing No. WB-23B-0831 drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle, and as a result, the claimant fell down and lorry front wheel ran over the petitioner’s left hand and therefore, the claimant received multiple crush injuries on his left hand, stomach, abdomen etc. and he was shifted to hospital at Palasa and later, he was taken to Kanakadurga Hospital at Visakhapatnam. Operation was conducted and left hand was amputated, and there he has taken treatment for about one month as in-patient and he incurred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses, besides attendant and extra nourishment charges, and on account of amputation he is unable to do cultivation work and mason work and therefore, he lost his earning capacity and therefore, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in all towards compensation. 12. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses, besides attendant and extra nourishment charges, and on account of amputation he is unable to do cultivation work and mason work and therefore, he lost his earning capacity and therefore, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in all towards compensation. 12. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company opposed the claim on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms of the insurance policy, and that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner and that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the claimant and further, the claim is excessive, and the claimant did not suffer any loss of income. 13. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of claimant and documents produced by him about the accident i.e. Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-3 copy of M.V.I. Report and Ex.A-4 copy of police report (charge sheet), held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 14. When coming to the claim of compensation, the Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence of the claimant, and documents filed by him under Ex.A-13 i.e. copies of pass book and title deeds relating to his agricultural lands owned by him, held that he did not sold any land as claimed by him for the expenses incurred in the accident, as such, there is no loss of income from the agricultural lands, and held that the claimant can claim only loss of supervisory charges, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sannala Bhaskara Reddy vs. M. Sreenivasulu and Another, 2010 ACJ 1122 and fixed the supervisory income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month on notional basis. 15. The Tribunal further held that the claimant did not file any certificate to prove the disability percentage, although his left hand was amputated. As per evidence of PW-2, who treated the claimant and amputated the left hand below elbow due to the injury sustained in the accident. 3,000/- per month on notional basis. 15. The Tribunal further held that the claimant did not file any certificate to prove the disability percentage, although his left hand was amputated. As per evidence of PW-2, who treated the claimant and amputated the left hand below elbow due to the injury sustained in the accident. The claimant suffered permanent disability of 60% as he lost his elbow of the left limb, and that the claimant cannot do any labour work or masonry work or cultivation work and he needs assistance to attend his normal duties and he also needs artificial limb to his left hand, which may cost around Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the evidence of the claimant and the doctor examined by him established that the claimant suffered crush injury to the left hand on account of the accident and thereby left hand was amputated below elbow. 16. The Tribunal as awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, and Rs. 10,000/- for extra nourishment of food and other miscellaneous expenditure. The Tribunal upon considering ExA-9 and Ex.A-11 medical bills produced by the claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 91,877/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 29,500/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,41,377/. The Tribunal did not award any amount to the claimant under the head loss of earnings on account of permanent disability or loss of amenities. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 held that in a case of personal injuries, if evidence is available, compensation can be awarded under the head loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, and amount can be awarded under loss of amenities in a fit case, basing on the facts and circumstances. In the case on hand, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of loss of earnings on account of permanent disability on the ground that the petitioner did not file any disability certificate, although, his left hand was amputated, and the petitioner examined doctor, who treated him and deposed that the petitioner 60% permanent disability, as he lost his elbow of the left limb. Further, the Tribunal observed that there is no evidence to show that the claimant was doing mason work. Further, the Tribunal observed that there is no evidence to show that the claimant was doing mason work. The evidence on record shows that the claimant is owning around Ac. 10-00 of agricultural land, and he is doing cultivation of the said agricultural land. The evidence produced by the claimant did not show that he suffered any loss of agricultural income on account of amputation of the left hand. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal in not awarding any amount to the claimant under the head loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, do not requires any interference. 18. But as the claimant has lost his left hand due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he needs some support of other persons to attend certain works in his daily life, and he would face inconvenience throughout his life. He would also face hardship and discomfort due to the amputation of left hand. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation under the head loss of amenities in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar’s case as under: “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 can be awarded.” 19. The Tribunal did not award any amount under the head loss of amenities. Considering the above facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- can be awarded to the claimant, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be modified partly. 20. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The accident occurred in the year 2010, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2010 and the Insurance Company without admitting for just, fair and reasonable compensation has been dragging the matter for the last 12 years. 20. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The accident occurred in the year 2010, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2010 and the Insurance Company without admitting for just, fair and reasonable compensation has been dragging the matter for the last 12 years. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 which referred another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SC 481 granted interest @ 9% p.a. 21. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. Accordingly, the point is answered. 22. POINT No. 2: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No. 1, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be modified partly. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the award dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 447/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,41,377/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs. 3,41,377/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only). The respondents 1 and 2 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. 5,41,377/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only), along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. 24. 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. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 5,41,377/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 5,41,377/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.