JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Common Order and Decree dated 29.08.2007 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 581 of 2005 along with M.V.O.P. No. 875 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram (hereinafter referred to “Tribunal”). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 20.11.2004 he along with his brother-in-law engaged a van bearing registration No. AP37 T 4229 from Kankipadu to go to Bobbili along with household articles; the respondent No. 1/driver of the van bearing registration No. AP37 T 4229 drove the van in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed a lorry which was parked by the respondent No. 4, without any safety signals and following the traffic rules; as a result, the claimant and his sister sustained simple and grievous injuries all over the body; the claimant was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where the Doctor found compound fracture of both left leg bones and conducted operation; police registered a case in Crime No. 183 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity “IPC”) against the respondent No. 1; the claimant was a spill operator at G.M.R. Industries Limited (Sugar Factory) at Sankili, Srikakulam District and used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, but due to compound fracture, the claimant suffered permanent disability; hence, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No. 1/driver of the van, respondent No. 2/ owner of the van, respondent No. 4/driver of the lorry and respondent No. 5/owner of the lorry remain ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. 6. The respondent No. 3/Insurer of the Van filed counter denying the age, income, avocation and health condition of the claimant at the time of accident and contended that the claim is excessive; the alleged accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of respondent No. 4/driver of the lorry and as such, the respondent Nos. 6. The respondent No. 3/Insurer of the Van filed counter denying the age, income, avocation and health condition of the claimant at the time of accident and contended that the claim is excessive; the alleged accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of respondent No. 4/driver of the lorry and as such, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the lorry are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant. 7. Respondent No. 6/Insurer of the lorry also filed counter denying the contents of the petition and contended that no fault lies either on the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and only to save the life of a pedestrian on the road, the respondent No. 1 turned the vehicle and lost control and dashed the stationed lorry; the claim of the claimant is excessive and not tenable under law. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred and resulting in injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the van bearing registration No. AP37 T 4229 by its driver/1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got examined three witnesses on his behalf as PW-2 to PW-4 and exhibited twelve (12) documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. On behalf of the respondent No. 6/Insurer of the lorry, RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and exhibited Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents. 10. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.2,65,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization fixing the liability against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally, directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to deposit 50% each out of compensation amount. 11. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, on issue No. 1 which is regarding rash and negligent driving, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and composite negligence of the respondent No. 4, who is the driver of the lorry. 11. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, on issue No. 1 which is regarding rash and negligent driving, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and composite negligence of the respondent No. 4, who is the driver of the lorry. This finding was not challenged by either of the Insurance Company or owners of the van and lorry. 12. The contention of the claimant is that, the Tribunal did not award just compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in the impugned motor accident and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side; the Tribunal did not consider the medical bills and awarded lesser amount than the amount claimed by the claimant; the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimant suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him and the length of treatment taken by him and thereby, erred in not awarding just compensation and therefore, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant may be reassessed to award just compensation. 13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, in M.V.O.P. No. 581 of 2005 vide Order and Decree dated 29.08.2007 is not a just compensation in the circumstances of the case and does it warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 14. POINT NO. 1: It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 6 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited filed appeal vide M.A.C.M.A. No. 2943 of 2009, challenging the Order and Decree and this Court, on 29.06.2009 “partly allowed” the appeal directing that the liability to pay compensation to the claimant shall be at 25% and for the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. AP20 T 6363 i.e. respondent No. 6 and directed the other insurer of the van bearing registration No. AP37 T 4229 to deposit 75% of the compensation amount and held that in all other aspects, the Order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 15. The main contention of the claimant is that, he filed application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for personal injuries. 15. The main contention of the claimant is that, he filed application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for personal injuries. Whereas, the Tribunal while assessing the compensation amount deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses as that of the case of claiming compensation for death and as a result, just compensation was not awarded to him. 16. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that deduction of 1/3rd amount from the income towards personal expenses while calculating compensation towards loss of earnings on account of permanent disability is an erroneous and therefore, it has to be rectified and compensation may be awarded accordingly. 17. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, who are the Doctors, examined by the claimant, assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 40% and accordingly calculated the compensation for loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. The Order of the Tribunal would show that while calculating the compensation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and the age in the group of “31-35 years” applied multiplier “17” and arrived the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability to Rs.3,26,400/- (i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum (i.e. 4,000 per month x 12 months) x 17 x 40%) and deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.1,08,800/- The deduction of 1/3 of the income in an application filed under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation for personal injuries is not justified. No income shall be deducted towards personal injuries. It will be deducted in the cases filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for death in a motor accident as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 case. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalan D. Alias Lal and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2020 (9) SCC 805 at Para No. 14 held as under: “As the appellant has survived though at present in almost “coma stage” as observed by the High Court, we reject the Insurance Company’s plea for making any deduction towards personal living expenses.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs. and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 780 at Para 8 held as under: “The submission is that it is not a case of death, but it is a case of injury and, as such, there was no question of any deduction towards personal expenses. Once again, reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Lalan D. Alias Lal (supra).” 20. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses has to be corrected. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as under: (i) The income of the claimant was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. (ii) He was placed in the age group of ‘31-35 years’ and the multiplier to be applied is ‘16’. (iii) So, the claimant is entitled to 40% of the said amount towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, as his partial permanent disability was fixed at 40% by the Tribunal. (iv) Hence, the amount towards just compensation entitled by the claimant towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability is Rs.3,07,200/-. 21. When coming to the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the ‘Conventional Heads’ i.e. a sum of Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards Transportation Charges; Rs.30,000/- towards Medicines, treatment and extra nourishment; Rs.15,000/- towards Pain and Suffering. Therefore, the total amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,55,200/- towards just compensation for the personal injuries suffered by the claimant, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered. 22. POINT NO. 2: In the light of finding on point No. 1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 604 of 2008 is liable to be “partly allowed.” 23. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is “partly allowed” by modifying the Common Order and Decree dated 29.08.2007 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 581 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty five thousand and two hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,65,600/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 24. 24. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable for the said amount. However, in view of the Judgment of this Court in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2943 of 2009, dated 29.06.2009, the insurer of the lorry shall deposit 25% of the said amount and the insurer of the van shall deposit 75% of the compensation amount within six (06) weeks from the date of the judgment, and in the event of already deposited by the respective insurers, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment in the aforesaid ratio. 25. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.