JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 09.10.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.646/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Nellore, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.2,12,150/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation 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.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.10.2008. 4. The facts would show that the claimant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and he was studying B.Tech second year course (EEE) in Lord Venkateswara Engineering College, Walajipet, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State. On 06.10.2008 at about 04.20 p.m. when the claimant was waiting at bus stop with intent to go to Sankarapuram on left side of road near Engineering College, meanwhile rider of Hero Honda Splendour Motor Cycle bearing No.TN 21 AC 0628 was driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner from his behind, resulting the petitioner fell down and received grievous. The injured was shifted to Chengalpet Government Hospital, and further to Government Stanely Hospital, Chennai for better treatment. He was also treated at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, and he was also shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where he underwent surgery to his left leg and over his head. Due to head injury, he is unable to concentrate on his studies. He lost his memory and sustained permanent disability. A case in Cr.No.180/2008 of Pallur Police Station of Kanchipuram was registered against the 1st respondent. 5. Due to head injury, he is unable to concentrate on his studies. He lost his memory and sustained permanent disability. A case in Cr.No.180/2008 of Pallur Police Station of Kanchipuram was registered against the 1st respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, 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, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the petitioner was negligent at the time of accident, and that the rider of the offending motor cycle did not possess valid driving license, and he is in drunken state and thereby violated the terms of the policy, and the claim is excessive. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the splendour motor cycle bearing No.TN 21 AC 0628 by its driver and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.TN 21 AC 0628 was not having valid and effective driving license as on the material date of accident. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? 7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14 and Exs.C-1 to C-3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, R.W-1 was examined, Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14 and Exs.C-1 to C-3 held that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle rider, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 5 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-14 and Exs.C-1 to C-3, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,12,150/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 9. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that he is a B.Tech student, and due to injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability, but the Tribunal did not grant just compensation. 10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. 9. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that he is a B.Tech student, and due to injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability, but the Tribunal did not grant just compensation. 10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: The case of the appellant/claimant is that he is studying B.Tech II Year, and on 06.10.2008 at about 03.20 p.m. he was waiting at the bus stop to go to Sankarapuram, while so, the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.TN 21 AC 0628 came from behind, dashed the claimant, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Chengalpet Government Hospital and later to Government Stanley Hospital at Chennai, and he was also treated at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, and CMC hospital at Vellore. He underwent surgery to his left leg and over his head. He is unable to concentrate on his studies due to loss of memory, and on account of head injury, he suffered permanent disability. Police registered a case against the rider of the motor cycle, as he drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted the accident. The 1st respondent is the owner of the motor cycle. The 2nd respondent is the insurer, and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant. 12. The insurer filed counter contending that the driver of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving license, and he was in a drunken state at the time of accident, thereby he violated the terms of the policy. 13. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence in the case, held that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. The Insurance Company did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal. 14. The claimant in his petition, claimed compensation under the following heads: I. For Special Damages:- a. Medical expenses 2,50,000-00 b. Transport expenses 10,000-00 II. For general damages: a. Compensation for pain and suffering 40,000-00 b. Compensation for loss of earning power, loss of disfiguration and permanent disability. 5,00,000-00 Total = Rs. 8,00,000-00 15. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: 1. Medical expenses 1,70,150-00 2. For general damages: a. Compensation for pain and suffering 40,000-00 b. Compensation for loss of earning power, loss of disfiguration and permanent disability. 5,00,000-00 Total = Rs. 8,00,000-00 15. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: 1. Medical expenses 1,70,150-00 2. Pain and suffering 40,000-00 3. Transport charges 2,000-00 TOTAL = Rs. 2,12,150-00 16. The appellant/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges under the head pecuniary damages (special damages). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,150/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal on consideration of Ex.A-6 bunch of bills produced by the appellant/claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,520/-. The appellant filed Ex.A-6 bunch of bills claiming amount of Rs.2,36,913/-, stating that they were issued by CMC, Vellore, and Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, for the treatment taken by him in the said hospitals. 17. The appellant has examined an Orthopaedic Surgeon, working in Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Porur, Chennai, as P.W-2. His evidence discloses that the appellant was admitted in their hospital on 06.10.2008, and on examination, they found certain grievous injuries, and the patient was given treatment in ICU, Neuro Surgeon Ward by Dr.Selva Kumar from 06.10.2008 to 25.10.2008 as per Ex.C-1 case sheet issued by the hospital. Some of the bills in Ex.A-6 for the period from 07.10.2008 to 24.10.2008 were issued by their hospital. 18. The appellant has examined an Orthopaedic Surgeon working in Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, as P.W-3. His evidence discloses that the appellant was admitted in their hospital on 26.01.2012 with diagnosis of non union left tibia, and he was operated on 31.01.2012, and he was discharged on 04.02.2012, and some of the medical bills i.e., two final bills Nos.36 to 47 in Ex.A-6 were issued by their hospital authorities, and treatment was given to the patient as non-medico legal case, and at the time of discharge, patient condition was satisfactory. 19. The appellant also examined a Plastic Surgeon working in Narayana Hospital, Nellore, as P.W-4. His evidence discloses that the appellant was admitted in their hospital on 14.09.2013, and he was operate don 20.09.2013, and second surgery was also conducted on 30.09.2013 by skin grafting, and he was discharged on 07.10.2013 with an advice to take follow up action, and the numbers 8 to 44 covered by Ex.A-6 were issued by Narayana Hospital, Nellore. 20. His evidence discloses that the appellant was admitted in their hospital on 14.09.2013, and he was operate don 20.09.2013, and second surgery was also conducted on 30.09.2013 by skin grafting, and he was discharged on 07.10.2013 with an advice to take follow up action, and the numbers 8 to 44 covered by Ex.A-6 were issued by Narayana Hospital, Nellore. 20. The appellant also examined a Neuro Surgeon working in Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, as P.W-5. His evidence discloses that the appellant was admitted in their hospital on 06.10.2008 for an injury sustained in a road accident and an ETT tube C.T.scan was performed for brain, which disclosed haemorrhage and contusion, and patient was also diagnosed for bone fracture of left lower limb, and he was out on ventilator and treatment was given conservatively, and treatment was also given for the fracture by an Orthopaedist, and patient was in the hospital till 24.10.2008, and he was discharged against the medical advice, and at that time patient was on ventilator and condition was serious, but no surgery was conducted during the treatment at that point in time, and subsequently, he did not attend for follow up action. 21. Basing on the above evidence adduced by the appellant, the Tribunal considered Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-11 bunch of bills issued by the respective hospitals and found that the bills in serial numbers 29 to 32 for an amount of Rs.12,000/-, Rs.2,500/-, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.1,895/-, were relating to the fee paid by the appellant for his studies in Engineering College, and excluded them from the purview of the medical bills. The Tribunal verified the medical bills issued by Vijaya Health Centre, and CMC, Vellore, and also Sri Ramachandra Pharmacy produced by the appellant, awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,525/- under Ex.A-6 and Rs.27,625.18 paise under Ex.A-11, and in all a sum of Rs.1,70,150/-. The appellant is not able to point any error in the finding of the Tribunal. 22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges considering the treatment taken by the claimant in various hospitals located at various places. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, but he did not produce any documents. In that view of the matter, no ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect. 23. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, but he did not produce any documents. In that view of the matter, no ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect. 23. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering under head of non-pecuniary damages (general damages). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering upon consideration of the medical evidence. 24. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of earnings on the ground that he suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal did not award any amount under this head. The Tribunal upon consideration of Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-12 produced by the appellant and also Ex.A-13, Ex.A-14 which relates to engineering course of the appellant studied in Venkateswara Engineering College, Kanchipuram, held that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has lost education year on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident, and held that as per marks list produced by the appellant, he appeared for the examinations, and passed, which were held after the date of accident. Therefore, did not award any compensation. Further, the Tribunal observed that P.Ws-2 to 5 did not depose that the appellant suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The evidence of P.Ws-2 to 5 was discussed supra. None of the doctors deposed that the appellant suffered any disability, much less permanent disability on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. 25. The appellant in his evidence stated that due to fracture to left leg, he cannot walk properly and stand for long time; he cannot squat on the floor; he is getting pain while walking, and due to head injury, he is unable to concentrate on studies and lost memory power. As stated above, none of the doctors deposed that the appellant has lost memory power due to the head injury sustained in the accident. 26. On the other hand, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellant appeared for engineering examinations conducted after the accident, and passed the examinations. None of the doctors also deposed that he suffered permanent disability, to say that there is loss of amenities in life. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. 27. None of the doctors also deposed that he suffered permanent disability, to say that there is loss of amenities in life. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. 27. The appellant has to prove functional disability suffered by him on account of the alleged permanent disability to claim loss of earnings in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 . The appellant neither proved the permanent disability nor functional disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. There is no evidence to say that the appellant sustained loss of income either during the period of treatment, or loss of future earnings on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellant. 28. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No.1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award dated 09.10.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.646/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Nellore. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.