JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. Challenging the award dated 18.06.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 64/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II Addl.District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the appeal. 2. The respondent/claimant being minor, represented by his father filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 30.11.2010 at about 06.30 p.m. while the claimant was going towards his house at Tirumala Nagar on a bicycle, he reached a place near Seetharam Nagar Arch; At tha time a lorry bearing No. ATA 0485 which was coming into Adoni from Yemmiganur side came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bicycle, on which the claimant was travelling, as a result, the claimant fell down and right side front tyre ran over the hands of the claimant and sustained crush bleeding injuries; Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool for treatment; As per advice of doctors at Kurnool, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The claimant was treated as in-patient in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, from 01.12.2010 to 14.12.2010; He incurred expenditure of Rs.1,05,000/- towards medical charges, Rs.10,070/- towards x-ray; Subsequently, the claimant once again was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 23.12.2010 and he was treated as in-patient till 28.12.2010; During the said period, he incurred Rs.63,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,304/- towards medical examinations; The claimant had to undergo further treatment and he has to undergo an operation for left thumb. The claimant was hale and healthy before accident; He was studying 7th class; Due to crush injury of both hands, the claimant lost free movement and working condition of his hands is badly affected; As per doctors certificate, the permanent disability is 40%; The claimant is a brilliant student; The 1st respondent is owner of lorry and 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry. 3. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, 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, age of the claimant, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident occurred due to negligent of the claimant himself; The petitioner has not spent Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability; The compensation claimed by the claimed under different heads is excessive. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. 5. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident and the resultant injuries to the petitioner had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No. 1 on his lorry bearing No. ATA 0485? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? and If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. To substantiate his claim, the father of the claimant was examined as P.W-1, as the claimant was minor and also examined P.Ws-2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-35. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 7. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-35, held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 8. The learned counsel of the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimant under various heads; and that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant was a non-earning member and notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum should have been taken for calculating the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 9. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded just compensation as per law, and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No. 1: The claimant in order to establish his case, examined his father as P.W-1, who reiterated the petition averments and Exs.A-1 to A-35 are marked in his evidence. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No. 1: The claimant in order to establish his case, examined his father as P.W-1, who reiterated the petition averments and Exs.A-1 to A-35 are marked in his evidence. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident. He denied the suggestion that accident occurred in the middle of the road. 12. The claimant examined the eye witness as P.W-2, who is an employee of Narayana School at Seetharam Nagar. P.W-2 deposed that on 30.11.2010 he was returning home after the school hours; By the time he reached near Seetharam Nagar Arch, he witnessed the injured was going on a bicycle on left margin of road, whereas a lorry bearing No. ATA 0485 came from Yemmiganur side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit against the bicycle of injured, as a result injured fell on the ground and left side front tyre of lorry passed through both hands of injured; He called ambulance to the place of accident and informed the father of injured over phone; Immediately P.W-1 came to spot and shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Kurnool. In the cross-examination, he deposed that P.W-1 is not his relative and the injured is a student of their school. He further deposed that he saw the accident from a distance of 20 to 25 meters. He further deposed that the injured was going on left margin on the road. P.W-2 further deposed that the injured was a bright student, who scored 580 marks out of 600 in the last year examinations. P.W-1 filed copy of FIR, Ex.A-3 copy of police report (charge sheet), and Ex.A-35 disability certificate. The evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1, A-3 and A-35 would go to show that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. 13. To prove the case of the claimant, he also got examined P.W-3 Plastic Surgeon Dr.Bharatendu Swain of Apollo Hospital. P.W-3 deposed that the injured admitted in their hospital on 01.12.2010 with crush degloving injuries on right hand and forearm with skin loss of dorsum right hand and crush degloving injury of left hand forearm with de-vascularised and amputated left thumb. To prove the case of the claimant, he also got examined P.W-3 Plastic Surgeon Dr.Bharatendu Swain of Apollo Hospital. P.W-3 deposed that the injured admitted in their hospital on 01.12.2010 with crush degloving injuries on right hand and forearm with skin loss of dorsum right hand and crush degloving injury of left hand forearm with de-vascularised and amputated left thumb. He further deposed that on 01.12.2010 injured underwent debridement of wounds of both hands under general anaesthesia. On 04.12.2010 further decrement of right hand wound, k-wire stabilisation of right wrist and reverse radial forearm flap cover plus spilt skin grafting was done to cover the exposed bones and tenders of right hand. The injured was discharged on 14.12.2010. 14. P.W-3 further deposed that again the inured was admitted on 23.12.2010 and discharged on 27.12.2010 after examination. He further deposed that their hospital issued bills marked as exhibits. P.W-3 further deposed that the injured lost his left thumb and it requires reconstructive surgery at three stages and the possible cost would be Rs.4,00,000/-. 15. The claimant also examined Dr.P.Rajasekhar Reddy, who is a physiotherapist at Dhone. P.W-4 deposed that he issued Ex.A-22 bill and the injured paid Rs.18,000/- to him for physiotherapy done for him for 90 days. P.W-4 denied the suggestion that physiotherapy treatment will be given to only those persons who suffered joint stiffness. 16. The claimant also examined Dr.K.Md.Zahid of Adoni, as P.W-5, who is also a physiotherapist. He also did physiotherapy to the injured by charging Rs.18,000/-. P.W-5 deposed in the cross-examination that because of multiple surgeries done to injured, he required continuous physiotherapy otherwise, the limbs would have been paralysed. 17. The Administrative Officer of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company was examined as R.W-1 and he reiterated the counter averments in his chief-examination affidavit. In the cross-examination, he deposed that police investigated the case and filed charge sheet contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of crime vehicle. 18. The claimant produced Ex.A-35 disability certificate, stating that the disability of injured is 40%. The 2nd respondent simply denied the percentage of disability, but failed to adduce any rebuttal oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its contention. 19. 18. The claimant produced Ex.A-35 disability certificate, stating that the disability of injured is 40%. The 2nd respondent simply denied the percentage of disability, but failed to adduce any rebuttal oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its contention. 19. The learned Tribunal considering the above evidence available on record, awarded an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical expenses and nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering due to injuries, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings, loss of affection and happiness; and in all awarded Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimant is not having tenable force. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal does not warrants interference of this Court. 20. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 6% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 22. POINT No. 2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No. 1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award and decree dated 18.06.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 64/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.