JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 210 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa District and the respondent is the respondent in the said case. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The claimant has filed a Claim Petition under section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent/Corporation praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident, that occurred on 17.07.2006 at 2:30 PM. 4. The claimant’s case is that on 17.07.2006 at about 2:30 p.m. while he was boarding in RTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682 of Rayachoti depot, (herein after be referred as ‘offending vehicle’) the Conductor of the said bus, without observing the boarding into the bus by the petitioner and others, gave signal to the driver of the bus to start the bus and the driver started the bus, suddenly moved further, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture injuries. 5. The respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that on 17.07.2006, at about 2:45 p.m. offending vehicle (driven by one M.S. Reddy) stopped the bus at Charkrayapeta bus stop for allowing the passengers and after boarding of passengers; the service conductor S.K. Basha has closed the door and has given signal for moving the bus; then the driver started the bus in a very slow manner and the service conductor was issuing tickets in the bus after moving of bus; suddenly the petitioner himself opened the door of the RTC bus and tried to get down from the moving bus with an intention to go back for bringing some of his forgotten articles; in that process, the petitioner has failed his balance and fell down on the road; immediately the co-passengers shouted for stopping of the bus, the driver of the bus stopped the bus, went to Chakrayapeta police station and informed the matter to police stating that the accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner himself, who got down from the moving bus in a careless manner, without the knowledge of the conductor and driver of the bus. The respondent further pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver or the conductor of the bus, hence the respondent/corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682 drove it in a rash and negligent manner on 17.07.2006 at 2:30 p.m. near Chakrayapeta bus stop and caused motor accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner i.e. T. Ramireddy? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW-1, got examined the doctors as PW-2 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent/corporation, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and the petitioner has received grievous injuries due to the negligent act of the conductor of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the conductor of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, without observing the passengers, who are boarding, gave a signal to start the bus and that the driver of the said bus, suddenly moved the bus, due to which, the Claimant fell down and received grievous injuries. Basing on the same, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 67,500/- along with interest @ 7.5 % P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent/corporation to the petitioner. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant himself filed the present appeal for claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable? 11. The petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. Ex. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant himself filed the present appeal for claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable? 11. The petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. Ex. A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of Charge sheet, Ex.A.4 is the Medical Prescriptions, Exs.A5 and A7 are the Medical Bills and Ex.A.8 is the disability certificate. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing elicited from the claimant to prove that there was a negligence on the part of the claimant. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9, clearly established the negligence is on behalf of the conductor of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682. As per Ex.A9 charge sheet filed by police, the claimant is boarding into the bus, the conductor of the said bus gave right signal to move the bus, as a result of which, the bus suddenly started and the claimant fell down, due to the sudden jerk, PW-1 received injuries. No appeal is filed by respondent against the said findings the claim application is filed under section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the proof of involvement of the Vehicle in an accident is sufficient to decide the claim application, it is not case of the respondent/corporation that the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682 is not involved in the accident. The evidence on record before the tribunal clearly goes to show because of the negligent attitude of the conductor A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682 and the claimant received grievous injuries in the said accident. The Petitioner established identity of the Vehicle involved accident is the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682, upon considering the material on record the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident is occurred due to the involvement of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5682 and due to the negligent attitude of the conductor of the bus the accident is occurred and the claimant received grievous injuries in the said accident. 12. The Tribunal awarded of Rs. 12. The Tribunal awarded of Rs. 67,500/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand and five hundred only) amount to the petitioner/claimant towards compensation, as per the case of petitioner, the petitioner is an agricultural coolie, no strict proof is required to prove that the petitioner used to earn Rs. 200/- per day as an agricultural coolie, and the Tribunal came to conclusion that the loss of income Per month is Rs. 2,500/- and annual Income of the claimant is Rs. 30,000/- P.A. Here the date of accident is 17.07.2006. In those days an earning coolie can easily Rs. 100/- per day and Monthly of the Income of the claimant was taken up as Rs. 3000/- per month, therefore the Petitioner is entitled loss of income of three (3) months @ Rs. 3000/- per month, in total Rs. 9000/- (3000 x 3 = 9000/-). The Tribunal give a finding that the claimant sustained disability 5% in a road accident in view of the said accident and came to conclusion that the multiplier adopted is 13 and amount of Rs. 19500/- is awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal, here the annual income of the claimant is taken up as Rs. 36,000/- P.A. (Rs. 36,000/- x 5% disability x 13) Rs. 23,400/- 13. Therefore, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs. 23,400/- in view of the disability sustained by the claimant in the said road accident the tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards the head pain and suffering. As seen from the evidence PW-2 and PW-3, the claimant received fracture injuries, therefore the finding of the tribunal in awarding Rs. 25,000/- under head of pain and suffering is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere, with the said finding of the tribunal in its order clearly stated that the claimant has filed medical bills Exs. A5 and A6 and total to a tune of Rs. 28,623/- but awarded Rs. 20,000/- only towards medical expenses to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses the said finding is not correct, the claimant spent an amount of Rs. 28,623/- towards medical expenses there is documentary expenses evidence to that accident. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 28,623/- awarded towards medical expenses to the claimant. 14. Therefore, amount Rs. 28,623/- has to be awarded to the petitioner/claimant medical expenses Tribunal awarded Rs. 1500/- attendant charges and also awarded Rs. 28,623/- towards medical expenses there is documentary expenses evidence to that accident. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 28,623/- awarded towards medical expenses to the claimant. 14. Therefore, amount Rs. 28,623/- has to be awarded to the petitioner/claimant medical expenses Tribunal awarded Rs. 1500/- attendant charges and also awarded Rs. 1500/- towards transportation expenses, those are quite reasonable, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. Thus, in total the appellant/claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs. 89,023/- towards compensation. The claimant is entitled interest @ 7.5% P.A. on the enhanced the compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment by respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. 16. The respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the balance of amount within one month, the award passed by the Tribunal dated 15.10.2009, in M.V.O.P. No. 210 of 2008 is modified accordingly. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. 18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.