JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 10.09.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.271 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for his injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 03.05.2010. 4. The claimant's case is that on 03.05.2010, he went to Dyvalaravuru village on his T.V.S. Moped bearing No.AP-27-AA-8357. After completing his work, he was returning to his village on the NH-5 road. When he reached Venkatarajupalem village, the lorry bearing No.NL-01-D-7499 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle’) proceeding from Guntur to Ongole, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the back side of Moped of the claimant. As a result, he fell on the road and received multiple injuries, including a fracture of the tibia, shaft left leg and degloving injury on the right foot. He was taken first aid at Sai Neuro Trauma Hospital, Ongole. After that, he had taken treatment at N.R.I. Hospital, Guntur. From there, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada, where he was treated as an in-patient for 27 days. An operation was conducted on the fractures received to the left leg, and the rods were fixed. Skin grafting was done to the right foot, and plastic surgery was also conducted. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter contending that the offending vehicle's driver is an experienced driver with a valid driving licence. There was no mistake on his part in causing the accident. The accident was only due to the act of the claimant. The claimant was not a businessman. The lorry was insured with the .rd respondent. Compensation if any payable, is payable by the 3rd respondent only. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, contending that it was unaware of the criminal case proceedings launched against the 1st respondent. The insured did not report the accident in collusion with the claimant to cause loss to the 3rd respondent. The lorry was insured with the .rd respondent. Compensation if any payable, is payable by the 3rd respondent only. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, contending that it was unaware of the criminal case proceedings launched against the 1st respondent. The insured did not report the accident in collusion with the claimant to cause loss to the 3rd respondent. The offending vehicle’s driver i.e., 1st respondent has a valid driving licence. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the claimant. In any case, the compensation claimed is excessive, and the interest claimed is also excessive. The claimant sustained only one grievous injury. The claim of Rs.2,16,888.84/-towards medical and other conveyance expenses obtained from N.R.I. Hospital, Guntur are not correct. The said documents are obtained for wrongful gain. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.66. Respondents 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but got marked Ex.B.1-policy copy with consent. 8. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver and awarded compensation Rs.1,45,000/-together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. I have heard the learned counsel representing both parties. 10. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the petitioner by considering the nature of injuries, disability sustained, and treatment undergone by him; the tribunal failed to consider that the appellant had spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-for medical and nourishment; the tribunal erred in not awarding the compensation under the head of disability. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal. 12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and having perused the record, the point that has arisen for consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable? 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal. 12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and having perused the record, the point that has arisen for consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: a. 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. b. The tribunal's finding that the policy marked under Ex.B.1 was in force, the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent was insured with the third respondent, and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation are also not challenged in this appeal. c. As seen from the tribunal's Order, it has awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-towards physiotherapy and Rs.20,000/-towards loss of earnings and Rs.15,000/-towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/-towards attendant and other incidental charges. The compensation amount awarded by the tribunal under aforesaid heads is not challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal or cross-objections. Thus, the respondents have no grievance against the awarding of compensation amount of Rs.1,45,000/-as referred to above. d. The case of the claimant is that who received a fracture injury to his left leg, and he was an in-patient for a period of 27 days in Manipal Hospital, where operations were conducted, and rods were inserted, is accepted by the tribunal. The said finding of the tribunal is not challenged by the respondents. e. The case of the claimant is that as the injury was not healed, again he was admitted on 22.06.2007 to the same hospital and another operation was conducted for skin grafting and plastic surgery, and he was discharged on 03.07.2010; and again, he was admitted in the same hospital in 03.03.2011 and that in total four operations were conducted, is accepted by the tribunal. The said finding of the tribunal is not challenged by the respondents. f. As seen from the record, the claimant has placed Ex.A4 to Ex.A65-medical bills to show that he spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-towards medical expenses. The tribunal has not given any finding on the contention raised by the claimant, which is supported by medical bills. The said finding of the tribunal is not challenged by the respondents. f. As seen from the record, the claimant has placed Ex.A4 to Ex.A65-medical bills to show that he spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-towards medical expenses. The tribunal has not given any finding on the contention raised by the claimant, which is supported by medical bills. However, it has not been inclined to award medical expenses because the claimant was treated under Arogya Sree Scheme and is not entitled to treatment and medicine charges. As seen from the material on record, the claimant has not placed any evidence before the Court to show that despite getting treating under the Arogya Sree scheme, he has not received reimbursement for the medical expenses. The claimant is supposed to have adduced evidence that he has spent the amount covered under those medical bills without reimbursement under the Arogya Sree Scheme. In the absence of such evidence on record, this Court is not supposed to hold that the finding above given by the tribunal is not just and unreasonable. g. It is the claimant's grievance that the tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of disability, only on the ground that no disability certificate is issued by the competent authority. The evidence of PW.2 shows that he operated on the claimant on 04.05.2010, who sustained a compound segmental fracture of the left leg and a crush injury of the right ankle and on foot and skin grafting of the right leg and right foot ankle was done by the plastic surgeon by Dr.D.Nagaraju on the same day. He further testified that the debridement and flap coverage was done on 28.06.2010 by plastic surgeon D. Nagaraju. The evidence of PW.2 further shows that again on 13.05.2011, PW.1 was admitted for proximal plate removal, which was done on the same day and discharged on 14.05.2011, now claimant needs distal plate removal of left leg knee continuous physiotherapy for two years, and the patient received 40% of permanent partial disability. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that a disability percentage of 40% is excessive. From the reading of evidence on record, it is clear that the evidence of PW.2 that the claimant sustained permanent partial disability is not at all disputed. However, the percentage of disability is disputed. The medical record placed on record also supports the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. From the reading of evidence on record, it is clear that the evidence of PW.2 that the claimant sustained permanent partial disability is not at all disputed. However, the percentage of disability is disputed. The medical record placed on record also supports the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. h. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 A.C.J. 1, the Apex Court, while dealing with the assessment of disability, held that: "6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body found existing at the end of the treatment period and recuperation after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remaining life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body due to the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident. However, he can perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activities. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment-related activities due to the accident. 7…. 8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability due to injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most cases, the percentage of economic loss, the loss of earning capacity arising from a permanent disability, will differ from the percentage of permanent disability. Therefore, the tribunal must first decide whether there is any permanent disability, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. In most cases, the percentage of economic loss, the loss of earning capacity arising from a permanent disability, will differ from the percentage of permanent disability. Therefore, the tribunal must first decide whether there is any permanent disability, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide concerning the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed concerning any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability, then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability, it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the tribunal ascertains the actual extent of the permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether the such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 9….. 10…. 11…. 12…. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries) do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability concerning the person's whole body cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases where the tribunal, based on evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only regarding the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity will have to be assessed by the tribunal concerning the evidence in its entirety. (iv) The same permanent Disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." i. In A.Chalapathi Vs. The loss of earning capacity will have to be assessed by the tribunal concerning the evidence in its entirety. (iv) The same permanent Disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." i. In A.Chalapathi Vs. Satyanarayana N.Nuwal and others, 2010 (4) ALD 217 , this Court held that, "The evidence of a qualified orthopaedic surgeon can be accepted unless the Court finds evidence of the doctor not worthy of acceptance by giving cogent reasons. Opinion of a qualified doctor, that too the doctor who conducted surgery and treated patient, cannot be discredited." j. Following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, this Court views that PW.2's evidence regarding the partial permanent disability sustained by the claimant can be accepted. It is not the case of the respondents that PW.2 is not a qualified orthopaedic surgeon. The evidence of PW.2 shows that he conducted an operation and gave treatment to the claimant, as referred to above. k. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that the claimant could not walk because of stiffness in the left knee, left ankle and right ankle. The evidence of PW.1 shows that , he cannot do any work due to the accident, and in the near future, he has no hope of doing his work. As such, this Court views that the claimant sustained partial permanent disability. The tribunal accepted the case of the claimant, who used to earn Rs.5,000/-per month prior to the accident in question. The respondents did not dispute the tribunal finding by filing an appeal or cross-objections. As such, there is no difficulty in accepting the said finding of the tribunal regarding the claimant's earnings as of the date of the accident. The wound certificate relied on by the claimant shows that he was aged about 55 years as of the date of the accident. l. After considering the claimant's age, this Court finds that 10% of the additional income should be the warrant towards future prospects given the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Gopalappa Vs. The wound certificate relied on by the claimant shows that he was aged about 55 years as of the date of the accident. l. After considering the claimant's age, this Court finds that 10% 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.” m. Accordingly, this Court assessed the monthly earnings, including the future prospectus, at Rs.5,500/-(Rs. 5,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-x 10%). P.W.2 testified that the partial permanent disability of the claimant was 40%. After considering the nature of work to be undertaken by the claimant before the accident in question, this Court views that functional disability can be assessed at 20%. The multiplier for the person age groups of 51 to 55 years is "11," as provided by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors., v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., 2009 ACJ 1298 . Considering the evidence on record, this Court computed the loss of earnings due to the disability sustained by the claimant at Rs.1,45,200/-(Rs.5,500/-x 12 x 11 x 20%). n. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other heads is not questioned by filing cross-appeals or cross-objections. On perusal of the documents relied on by the tribunal, this Court views that the tribunal awarded just compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-under the other heads. As the tribunal has not awarded under the head of disability, given the preceding discussion, this Court believes that the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,45,200/-under the head of disability. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,90,200/-(Rs.1,45,000/-+ Rs.1,45,200/-). Accordingly, the point is answered. 13. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,45,000/-to Rs. 2,90,200/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Two Hundred 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 by filing an appropriate application before the tribunal. 14. 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 by filing an appropriate application before the tribunal. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.