JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 06.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 91/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 16,08,939/- with interest @ 6% 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. 12,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.07.2011. 4. The facts would show that on 07.17.2011 the petitioner being an advocate, after completion of court work at Ongole, started to go to attend court work at Addanki, and when he reached near Hero Honda Showroom at 01.30 p.m. on NH-5 road, at that time, the driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, and immediately he was shifted to Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole, and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur and he underwent several operations for fracture injuries, and spent huge amount, and on the report, the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station registered a case against the driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 as case in Cr. No. 198/2011 U/s. 337 of Indian Penal Code. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/owner of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 filed written statement, denying the material averments of the petition, and submitted that the 1st respondent/driver never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/owner of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 filed written statement, denying the material averments of the petition, and submitted that the 1st respondent/driver never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident. 6. The 3rd 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 the 1st respondent/driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, and that he was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 7. The 4th respondent/possessor of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 filed counter by denying the averments of the petition, and contended that the 1st respondent/driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 never drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The 5th respondent filed a memo, adopting the counter filed by the 4th respondent. 8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 by its driver/1st respondent? 2. Whether the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to pay compensation, as they took the crime vehicle on lease from the 2nd respondent or 2nd respondent being owner of the vehicle is only liable to pay compensation? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief? 9. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, RWs. 3 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-2 to B-4 and Exs.X-3 to X-6 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, respondents No. 4 and 5, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, RWs. 3 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-2 to B-4 and Exs.X-3 to X-6 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, respondents No. 4 and 5, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673 only, and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,08,939/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 11. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the award dated 06.01.2012 in MVOP No. 91/2012 on the file of MACT cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant is liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle, though the driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and further, the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimant without evidence. 12. In the light of above contentions in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle on the date of accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimant? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT No. 1: The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The undisputed fact is that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is an auto bearing No. AP-27-X-8673. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its case, examined its Legal Officer as RW-3. He deposed that as per Registration Certificate of the vehicle, it is a “goods carriage-L.M.V.” vehicle and that the driver was not having driving license to drive the said vehicle on the date of accident. Ex.B-3 is the copy of Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its case, examined its Legal Officer as RW-3. He deposed that as per Registration Certificate of the vehicle, it is a “goods carriage-L.M.V.” vehicle and that the driver was not having driving license to drive the said vehicle on the date of accident. Ex.B-3 is the copy of Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle. Ex.B-4 is copy of driving license of the 1st respondent, who was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. 14. RW-3 in the cross-examination of the claimant deposed that the crime vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle, and the insured paid the premium covering the risk of third party, and that the claimant is a third party to the policy, and the Insurance Company did not file any document to show that the vehicle is not in a fit condition or there is no permit at the time of accident, and that on the date of accident, Ex.B-2 policy is in force. 15. The appellant has examined a Senior Assistant working in Deputy Transport Commissioner’s Office, Ongole, as RW-4. He deposed that Ex.X-4 is a copy of Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle, and that as per Ex.X-4 the auto is light motor vehicle goods carrier. 16. The appellant also examined a Junior Assistant working in Deputy Transport Commissioner’s Office, Guntur, as RW-5. He deposed that Ex.X-6 is the copy of driving license of the driver i.e. 1st respondent in the case, and who was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. 17. As per his evidence, the driver is not having L.M.V. Transport driving license, and that he is not competent to drive the crime vehicle. In the cross-examination of the claimant, he admitted as per Ex.X-6, the driver is having heavy vehicle driving license, but he denied the suggestion that a person who possesses license to drive heavy vehicle, can also drive light motor vehicle. 18. Ex.X-4 is a copy of registration certificate of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP-27-X-8673. It shows that class of vehicle is “goods carriage-L.M.V.” Ex.X-6 is a copy of driving license of the 1st respondent, who was driving the vehicle covered by Ex.X-4 on the date of accident. Ex.X-6 shows that the 1st respondent was having license to drive a heavy motor vehicle-transport, and license was valid on the date of accident. 19. It shows that class of vehicle is “goods carriage-L.M.V.” Ex.X-6 is a copy of driving license of the 1st respondent, who was driving the vehicle covered by Ex.X-4 on the date of accident. Ex.X-6 shows that the 1st respondent was having license to drive a heavy motor vehicle-transport, and license was valid on the date of accident. 19. In the light of above evidence, and established facts in the case, the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and Others, 2008 (3) ALD 7 (SC) and judgments of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Siddarapu Gangaiah (Died) per LRs. and Others, 2013 (4) ALD 60 and E. Rajeswari vs. T.S. Sekhar and Another, 2011 (1) ALD 451 rejected the contention of the appellant, and held that the driver possessing Ex.X-6 driving license, which authorises him to drive a heavy vehicle-transport, can also drive the class of vehicle covered by Ex.X-4, which is only a light motor vehicle-transport. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellant. 20. POINT No. 2: The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,36,739/- towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines etc. basing on Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-16 medical bills supported by the evidence of PW-1, who is claimant, and PW-2 to 4, who are the doctors treated the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant during the cross-examination of PW-1, PWs. 2 to 4 did not elicit anything to say that the bills covered by Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-16 are not genuine or not related to the treatment of the claimant. The amount covered by Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-16 comes to Rs. 6,36,739/-. The Tribunal has awarded the said amount only under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) relating to treatment, hospitalisation, and medicines. 21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,07,200/- under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 6,36,739/-. The Tribunal has awarded the said amount only under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) relating to treatment, hospitalisation, and medicines. 21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,07,200/- under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. It is the case of the claimant that on account of the accident, he sustained two fractures to the right leg apart from other injuries, and that initially he was admitted in Venkata Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole and later shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur on 07.07.2011 and three operations were conducted, and later, he was shifted to Coimbatore, and admitted in Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Limited, and there again operations were conducted to the fracture injuries, and he visited the said hospital on several occasions for about two years till June, 2015 for removal of implants, and on account of the two fractures of the right leg, he suffered permanent disability of 63%. The claimant to prove permanent disability has examined a Member from Medical Board as PW-5, and relied on Ex.A-14 issued by the Medical Board, Ongole, apart from the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4. 22. The evidence of claimant is that he could not do his legal profession i.e. advocate for two years and further, he is unable to walk as usually, and he requires supporting stick and help of others to attend his duties, and he claimed a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards compensation, which includes expenses relating to hospitalisation, treatment and medicines etc. 23. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,07,200/- as compensation for 63% disability, Rs. 50,000/- towards two fracture injuries and Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, relying on Ex.A-14 disability certificate, and Ex.A-2 wound certificate, apart from Rs. 6,36,739/- awarded towards hospitalisation and medical expenses. 24. The Tribunal in its order referred the contention of the claimant that the claimant is a practising advocate, sustained multiple injuries, and became disabled and lost his earning capacity. The Tribunal awarded the above amount of Rs. 9,07,200/-. 6,36,739/- awarded towards hospitalisation and medical expenses. 24. The Tribunal in its order referred the contention of the claimant that the claimant is a practising advocate, sustained multiple injuries, and became disabled and lost his earning capacity. The Tribunal awarded the above amount of Rs. 9,07,200/-. The Tribunal did not assign any reason as to how it considered 63% disability covered by Ex.A-14 applies to the whole body of the claimant and the functional disability suffered by the claimant, and how it has affected his earning capacity to award compensation under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 25. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal delivered its order on 06.01.2016. The Hon’ble Apex Court delivered judgment in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 case in the year 2010 laying down principles as how to determine compensation in cases of personal injuries U/s. 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court again reiterated the said principles in the year 2013 in the case of G. Ravindranath vs. E. Srinivas and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 455 . Inspite of the said landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, on how to determine compensation in a case of personal injury and serious injuries and the heads under which compensation has to be determined, the Tribunal completely ignored the said principles and simply calculated the compensation, basing on Ex.A-14, though disability is to the limb only, and the claimant is an advocate, and without any finding as to how the said disability come in the way of the profession to carry as an advocate i.e. functional disability, and how he would lose earnings on account of the said disability. This Court in several cases noticed that the Tribunals are not following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar’s case and Ravindranath’s case, while determining compensation under various heads in the case of claim petitions filed for compensation in personal injury cases, sustained in the motor vehicle accident cases. The Tribunals shall bear in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases while determining compensation for personal injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident cases. 26. The Tribunals shall bear in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases while determining compensation for personal injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident cases. 26. The Tribunal did not discuss anything about the permanent disability and functional disability suffered by the claimant and simply calculated the compensation amount, as if it is a case of awarding compensation for death, relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . In the said circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be re-determined by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for a case of personal injuries. 27. The claimant in his evidence deposed that on account of the injuries, he has lost his profession nearly for two years and still he is unable to walk and work as usually, and he needs help of others and also the support of a stick to walk. Exs.A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-13 and Ex.A-15 would show that the claimant has been taking treatment from the date of accident till June, 2015 for the fracture injuries sustained by him in the accident. The evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 supported his case that he has been taking treatment for about two years due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It appears that under Ex.A-15 he was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Comimbatore, on 17.2.2015 and discharged on 15.6.2015 for removal of the implants and for bone grafting. Therefore, the period covered by 07.07.2011 to 15.06.2015 nearly four years can be considered as a period of treatment undergone by the claimant, visiting various hospitals to set right the fractures sustained to the right leg, and finally after several operations conducted for implanting steel rods, they were removed in June, 2015 and skin grafting was conducted to close the open wound suffered by him, on account of the bone fractures. This period of four years can be considered as period during which the claimant could not attend the courts to carry on his profession as an advocate, and lost income, to award compensation under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) under the subhead, loss of earning during the period of treatment. 28. This period of four years can be considered as period during which the claimant could not attend the courts to carry on his profession as an advocate, and lost income, to award compensation under the head pecuniary damages (special damages) under the subhead, loss of earning during the period of treatment. 28. The Tribunal has fixed the income of the claimant at Rs. 7,500/- per month as an advocate, though he claimed it as Rs. 15,000/- per month. If Rs. 7,500/- is taken into consideration as monthly income of the claimant as fixed by the Tribunal, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,500 x 48 = Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. 29. The claimant in his evidence did not depose that subsequent to his discharge in June, 2015 he is not attending to the courts to carry on his profession as an advocate, and thereby he suffered loss of future earnings. The evidence of doctors would establish that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature i.e. both bones of right leg were fractured, and that he cannot walk without support, and he has limp on walking, and his knee bending is restricted at 90 degrees, and he cannot walk long distance, and he cannot go public transport, and cannot sit cross legged or squat. Therefore, the evidence of doctors examined by the claimant show that he suffered loss of amenities in his life on account of the above injuries sustained by him in the accident, and he also suffered lot of pain and trauma as a consequence of injuries. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar’s case, the claimant is entitled to claim compensation towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma and also under the head loss of amenities under the category of non-pecuniary damages (general damages), instead of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 30. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries, pain, suffering and trauma, suffered by the claimant, as a consequence of injuries, he can be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head damages for pain, suffering and trauma. 31. 30. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries, pain, suffering and trauma, suffered by the claimant, as a consequence of injuries, he can be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head damages for pain, suffering and trauma. 31. He is also entitled for compensation under the head loss of amenities due to the consequences suffered by him on account of injuries and permanent disability to his limb, and discomfort that would be faced by him throughout his life. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- can be awarded to him under the head loss of amenities. Hence, the total compensation entitled by the claimant would be Rs. 6,36,739 + 3,60,000 + 1,00,000 + 5,00,000 = Rs. 15,96,739/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 16,09,739/-. The difference is only a small amount. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and Others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and Others, 2022 Live Law (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 claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs. 12,00,000/- the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs. 16,09,739/-. 33. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Court can award compensation beyond the claim, if it is a just compensation, subject to payment of court fee. The Tribunal has already directed the claimant to pay balance court fee for the excess amount awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as excessive amount, as contended by the appellant/Insurance Company. Accordingly, this point is answered. 34. POINT No. 3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No. 1 and 2, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 35. Accordingly, this point is answered. 34. POINT No. 3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No. 1 and 2, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award dated 06.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 91/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.