JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.707 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellant, who is the claimant in M.V.O.P., has preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience. 3. The claimant had filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-for his injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 17.06.2003. 4. The claimant's case is that on 17.06.2003, during his employment under the 2nd respondent, he started in a lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 T 8899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') as a cleaner. The first respondent, who is the offending vehicle's driver, drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently; when it reached near Konijerla police station, the lorry turned turtle. As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government hospital, Khammam; after that, he had taken treatment at several hospitals. Plastic surgery was also conducted on his left leg. The Station House Officer, Konijerla police station, registered a case in Cr.No.76 of 2003 under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. against the first respondent. 5. Respondents 1 and 2, the offending vehicle's driver and owner, have remained exparte. 6. Respondent No.3-insurance company, has filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the claimant should prove that the offending vehicle was insured with this respondent and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. The claimant should prove that the offending vehicle's driver had a valid and subsisting driving licence at the time of the accident. The claimant shall put to strict proof that he sustained injuries in the accident. The compensation claimed is excessive. The accident is said to have occurred during his employment as a cleaner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the application. If the claimant has any grievance against the insurance company, he has to file the petition before the Workmen's Compensation Court at Vizianagaram. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. Hence, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the application. If the claimant has any grievance against the insurance company, he has to file the petition before the Workmen's Compensation Court at Vizianagaram. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the contesting 3rd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and granted compensation of Rs.70,256/-under various heads together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the record. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation by treating the disability sustained by him as 100%; the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.5,000/-to the grievous injury, and Rs.1,000/-to each of the simple injuries and the Tribunal should have awarded a minimum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-under this head. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations. 12. Now the point for determination is: Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires modification? POINT: 13. The Tribunal's findings that the accident occurred on account of the first respondent's negligent driving and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident are not disputed by filing an appeal or cross-objection. Hence these findings have attained finality. The case of the claimant that he sustained injuries as reflected in the Ex.A3-wound certificate is not disputed by the insurance company. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A13-disability certificate and Ex.A15-salary certificate were also marked by consent. To show the disability caused to him, the claimant also relied on Ex.A9-bunch of X-ray films and Ex.A1-bunch of 3 x-ray films and Ex.A14-latest x-ray, Ex.A5-photo with the negative of the claimant. 14. It is not the case of the respondents that the insurance policy was not in force as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,256/-to the claimant. 14. It is not the case of the respondents that the insurance policy was not in force as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,256/-to the claimant. The insurance company has not filed an appeal or cross-objections disputing the quantum of compensation. Thus, it can be inferred that the insurance company has no grievance about awarding such compensation. 15. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he sustained a fracture to the bone of the left leg and a grievous injury on the left foot, besides injuries on the head and other parts of the body. He was taken to Government Hospital at Khammam. Later his owner got him admitted to Saint Josephs's Hospital at Gajuwaka, where skin grafting was done, P.O.P. casing was applied to the left lower limb, and he retained it for 42 days. Subsequently, he underwent an operation in Venkateswara Nursing Home, Vizianagaram, where the fracture was corrected by nailing, but the injury did not heal. Further, he was treated in Suraj Hospital and underwent three operations. The implants were removed, and the doctors advised him to undergo one more operation in the coming six months. The claimant has relied on Exs.A3 to A.11 in support of his case regarding the injuries and treatment undergone him. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.1 regarding the injuries sustained, and his evidence is not disputed by the respondents. As per Ex.A3-medical certificate, the claimant suffered three injuries, i.e., one is grievous, and the other two injuries are simple. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-for the grievous injury and Rs.1,000/-each for the simple injury. 16. To prove the nature of the treatment undergone, the claimant examined Dr S. Venkateswara Rao, P.W.2, who is running a nursing home at Vizianagaram. According to his evidence, he operated on 02.08.2003. Bone grafting and nail fixation were done to the left leg's tibia. He was discharged on 13.08.2003 with a piece of advice to come for review after two months and also advised the claimant to undertake partial weight-bearing activities for another six weeks. He issued Ex.A.4(a) in Ex.A. 4 bills towards operation charges that received Rs.15,000/-under the said bill. He filed a bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.45,256/-under Ex.A4. He was discharged on 13.08.2003 with a piece of advice to come for review after two months and also advised the claimant to undertake partial weight-bearing activities for another six weeks. He issued Ex.A.4(a) in Ex.A. 4 bills towards operation charges that received Rs.15,000/-under the said bill. He filed a bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.45,256/-under Ex.A4. In the cross-examination, PW.2 deposed that he did not issue the wound certificate of the claimant and he was not aware of the treatment received by the claimant subsequently. After considering the documents relied on by the claimant, the Tribunal considered the claim of the claimant for medicines etc. and awarded an amount of Rs.45,256/-to the claimant. Since this petition is filed under section 163-A, this Court views that the Tribunal should have awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-towards medical expenses. 17. The claimant appeared before the District Medical Board on 03.10.2005. Upon clinical examination and considering the X-ray and wound certificate, the doctor issued Ex.A13-disability certificate. 18. The Tribunal observed that the claimant failed to prove Ex.A.13 by examining the medical board member and has not awarded any compensation under the head of disability. Ex.A13 – disability certificate is marked without any objection by consent. Ex.A5-photograph with negative also shows the disability caused to the claimant. The said document speaks of the disability caused to the claimant. The evidence of PW.2 supports the injuries and disability sustained by the claimant. Ex.A13 document shows that the claimant suffered a fracture of the old malunited left tibia and restriction of the ankle of knee movement and mild limping, thereby assessing the disability at 25% partial and permanent. 19. The claimant relied on Ex.A.15-salary certificate, which shows that he worked as a cleaner in the transport company and was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. The said certificate shows the occupation of the claimant as a cleaner. Following the monthly earnings, 40% of the additional income should be the warrant towards future prospects given the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Gopalappa Vs. Kanduluru Sankara Reddy and another, 2022 ACJ 1427 wherein it held that, “…in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695 (S.C.), the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards prospects.” 20. Kanduluru Sankara Reddy and another, 2022 ACJ 1427 wherein it held that, “…in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695 (S.C.), the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards prospects.” 20. Accordingly, this Court assessed the monthly earnings, including the future prospectus, at Rs.4,200/-(Rs.3,200/-+ Rs.1,200/-). As per Ex.A13-disability certificate, the functional disability of the claimant was 25%. But the Tribunal has not considered the same. This Court assesses the functional disability at 10%. In the claim petition, the claimant was shown as 20 years old, and the disability certificate-Ex.A.13 noted the claimant's age as 22 years. Therefore, this Court considers the claimant's age as mentioned in Ex.A.13, disability certificate. 21. Per the second schedule for compensation for third-party fatal accidents/injury case claims, the multiplier 17' will apply to the age group above 20 but not exceeding 25 years. The claimant's age is 22 years as of the date of the accident, so this Court considered the multiplier 17' in calculating the loss of income of the deceased. By viewing the same, this Court computed the loss of earnings due to the disability sustained by the claimant at Rs.85,680/-(Rs.4,200/-x 12 x 17 x 10%). 22. As already observed, this Court views that an amount of Rs.15,000/-is to be awarded towards medical expenses. Given the preceding discussion, this Court opinions that the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.85,680/-under the head of disability and Rs.15,000/-towards medical expenses. As the claimant sustained grievous injury and two simple injuries, this Court views him as entitled to compensation of Rs.7,000/-towards injuries. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,07,680/-(Rs.85,680/-+ Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.7,000/-). Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.70,256/-to Rs.1,07,680/-(Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal against the respondents. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount, excluding the amount deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount on filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. 24. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.