JUDGMENT : 1. The Award, dated 05.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram (for short “Tribunal”), is under challenge in the present MACMA filed by the appellant. The present appellant is claimant in the above MVOP and not satisfied with the compensation amount of Rs.1,23,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicles accident, he filed the present appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the present claimant in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013 according to the averments in the petition before the Tribunal is that on 28.09.2012 he as pillion rider along with his friend Danthuluri Ramakrishna Varma (rider of the motorbike) was proceeding on Hero Honda Motorbike bearing No.A.P.05-AB-1156 and when they reached near Chepuru Village at about 9-45 p.m., the first respondent being the driver of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.16-TV-2503 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending lorry”) came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the motorcyclist from behind. As a result of the violent hit, the claimant and rider of the motorbike were fell on the road and the claimant sustained grievous injury to his left leg and multiple injuries to both his legs and hands and all over his body. The claimant was aged 28 years and was doing poultry business and was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. He lost his future earnings. The first respondent was the driver, the second respondent was the registered owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the offending Lorry and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The claimant sought to award a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for compensation. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The third respondent/insurance company got filed a written statement contending in substance that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant only. There was no rash and negligent on the part of the first respondent. The first respondent has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed. 6. There was no rash and negligent on the part of the first respondent. The first respondent has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent, while first respondent-driver of the offending lorry bearing A.P.16-TV-2503? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked and further Ex.X.1 and Ex.2 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company/3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and further Ex.B.1 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. It is evident from the appendix of evidence and further the judgment of the Tribunal. 8. On completion of enquiry and on hearing both sides, the Tribunal gave findings that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and the driver of the offending lorry has also valid driving license to drive the vehicle and as the claimant was a third party and as Ex.B.1 covers the period of accident in respect of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and directed the third respondent to deposit the amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and that the amount is to be deposited within 30 days from the date of award and that the claimant can withdraw a sum of Rs.75,000/- and remaining amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of six months and thereafter he can withdraw the same with accrued interest. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent. Felt aggrieved of the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is not sufficient, the claimant filed the present MACMA. 9. The third respondent contested the MACMA. Though there was service of notices on respondent Nos.1 and 2, they did not contest the MACMA. 10. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent. Felt aggrieved of the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is not sufficient, the claimant filed the present MACMA. 9. The third respondent contested the MACMA. Though there was service of notices on respondent Nos.1 and 2, they did not contest the MACMA. 10. Now in deciding this MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a tune of Rs.1,23,000/- by virtue of the award, dated 05.02.2015, is just and reasonable and, if not so, whether it is liable to be enhanced and, if so, to what extent? (2) To what relief? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, would contend through the Video Conference that the claimant received multiple fractures on the left foot four in number and further received three simple injuries, multiple abrasions over abdomen, pelvis, right knee and it is testified by P.W.2 coupled with Ex.X.1-case sheet and Ex.X.2-bunch of X-rays. There was loss of earnings also on account of the permanent disability sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal did not consider the loss of earnings during the period of treatment. The Tribunal did not consider the functional disability though the disability was 20% as per medical evidence. With the above submissions, he would contend that the compensation is liable to be enhanced. 12. Sri K. Ashok Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, would contend that the Tribunal considered the aspects of permanent disability and also dealt with the compensation under the injuries specifically and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and it is just, as such, there are no grounds to enhance the compensation. 13. P.W.1 before the Tribunal is no other than the claimant, who got filed chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. He further got marked Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 through the examination of P.W.2, the medical officer. R.W.1 was representative of insurance company who filed chief examination affidavit adverting to the contents of written statement and through him Ex.B.1-policy and further Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. 14. He further got marked Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 through the examination of P.W.2, the medical officer. R.W.1 was representative of insurance company who filed chief examination affidavit adverting to the contents of written statement and through him Ex.B.1-policy and further Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. 14. It is to be noted that insofar as findings of the Tribunal that the evidence on record quietly proves the rash and negligent act alleged against the first respondent and that the first respondent had a valid driving license by virtue of Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 and further the vehicle had a valid permit by virtue of Ex.X.3 and Ex.X.4 is concerned, they are not in dispute. The contesting third respondent did not dispute those findings of Tribunal while advancing arguments. There is no cross appeal disputing the findings of the Tribunal. The whole controversy in this appeal is only to decide as to whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable or not. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. As evident from the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2, the claimant received multiple fractures on the left foot four in number and three simple injuries on the rest of the body. According to the evidence of P.W.2, he found pain and swelling of left foot, multiple abrasions over abdomen, pelvis, right knee. X-ray shows fracture of proximal phalynx of second toe, meta tarsal and first metal tarsal and navicular of left foot. According to Ex.X.1-case sheet, it is quietly evident that the claimant was treated in the hospital from 29.09.2012 to 20.10.2012 and further he was advised to have bed rest for a period of one month. Therefore, by looking into the same, it can safely be said that for about two months, the claimant was handicapped from pursuing his occupation. There is no dispute that the Tribunal did not consider the loss of earnings during the period of treatment. 15. Coming to the aspect of permanent disability, the Tribunal elaborately dealt with the same. As evident from the evidence of P.W.2 and even from P.W.1 coupled with medical evidence, absolutely, there was no functional disability whatsoever. The Tribunal placing reliance of decision in Raj Kumar vs. Ajya Kumar and another, 2011(1) An.W.R. 411 came to a conclusion that there was no permanent disability or functional disability so as to incapacitate the claimant from pursuing his profession. 16. The Tribunal placing reliance of decision in Raj Kumar vs. Ajya Kumar and another, 2011(1) An.W.R. 411 came to a conclusion that there was no permanent disability or functional disability so as to incapacitate the claimant from pursuing his profession. 16. Looking into the evidence on record and the findings of the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that simply because the claimant received four multiple fractures in the left foot, absolutely, it is not coming in the way of him in any way for his earnings. Apart from this, P.W.2 was not the member of the Medical Board. He did not have any note to assess the disability. The percentage of disability spoken to by him was not on any standard basis. In cross examination, he testified that he has no notes with him to say and assess the percentage of disability. Therefore, without any basis whatsoever P.W.2 made a mention as regards the permanent disability. The claimant did not prove his permanent disability or functional disability in accordance with law. Considering the same, the Tribunal rightly negatived the contention of the claimant that he sustained permanent disability and that it affected his future earnings. 17. It is to be noted that the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- under pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- under conveyance and extra nourishment; Rs.10,000/- under damage to clothing and discomfort; Rs.43,000/- under medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- under loss of amenities. The claimant claimed Rs.43,000/- under Ex.A.5-medical expenditure which was accepted by the Tribunal. With regard to pain and suffering, there is every reason to believe that the Tribunal did not consider the quantum of compensation properly. There were multiple fractures on the left foot of the claimant. Apart from that there were three injuries i.e., pain, swelling of left foot; multiple abrasions over abdomen, pelvis and right knee which were nothing but simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering for the injuries received. Though the site of fracture was on left foot, but the fractures were four in number. Apart from this, there were multiple abrasions over abdomen, pelvis and right knee. Considering the same, an amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in my considered view was not at all reasonable. Though the site of fracture was on left foot, but the fractures were four in number. Apart from this, there were multiple abrasions over abdomen, pelvis and right knee. Considering the same, an amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in my considered view was not at all reasonable. In my considered view, the Tribunal ought to have considered fractures four in number to award the amount for the pain and suffering. 18. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.70,000/- by considering four fractures together for pain and suffering. I further deem it to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- for simple injuries together. Apart from this there is no dispute that the claimant incapacitated himself from earnings during the period of treatment and during the period of bed rest which was for about two months. Considering the same, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each month and thereby it comes to Rs.10,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Hence, the difference of compensation which the claimant is entitled is Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for three simple injuries together and further Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. In my considered view, the compensation is to be enhanced accordingly to a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, the difference of this part of compensation is to be enhanced. 19. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from that of Rs.1,23,000/- to Rs.1,58,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the difference amount of Rs.35,000/- from the date of petition till date of award and further directing the respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013 to deposit the above said amount within one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Registry is directed to forward the record along with the copy of this judgment to the Tribunal on or before 21.12.2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.