JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is petitioner and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No. 527 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 11.04.2011. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner was working as a cleaner on a lorry bearing registration No. AP 16TT 2539 belonging to the 1st respondent. On 11.04.2011 the petitioner was proceeding on the said lorry along with a load of tender coconuts and when the lorry reached near N.H.16, Ganapavaram main centre, Guntur District, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and dashed against a stationed lorry. As a result, the petitioner received multiple injuries. With regard to the said accident, the S.H.O., Nadendla P.S., registered a case in Crime No. 32 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent /Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of the accident. It is pleaded that the accident took place due to collision of the offending lorry and another vehicle, and that the driver of the lorry is not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident and the 1st respondent allowed the petitioner to travel in the lorry and thereby, the 1st respondent violated the conditions of the policy. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16TT 2539? 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16TT 2539? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount against whom? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through P.W.2. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and because of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries and accordingly, granted a total compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that the Tribunal erred in fixing liability of 50% contributory negligence on the offending vehicle. 11. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for? (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In order to establish his case, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs.A.1-attested copy of first information report and Ex.A.2- attested copy of charge sheet. The petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition in his evidence. Nothing worth was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Further, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to prove its case. The petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition in his evidence. Nothing worth was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Further, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to prove its case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. Moreover, against the said finding, no appeal was preferred by the respondents including the Insurance company. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. According to the petitioner, he was aged about 29 years and he used to earn Rs.2,500/- p.m. and Rs.25/- per day towards batta as a lorry cleaner at the time of accident, that due to the accident, he became permanently disabled person and he is unable to do any work as he sustained injuries to his right leg ankle and left leg knee and ankle, and that he spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. 14. P.W.2- the Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Government General Hospital, Guntur, who treated the petitioner, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 12.04.2011 with the injury of Type III B compound fracture of 5th metatarsal and dislocation of tarso metatarsal joint of right foot and he underwent surgery for debridment internal fixation and skin grafting. He also deposed that the petitioner is suffering with 15% partial disability and he cannot to climb height and walk on uneven surface due to the said disability. 15. By giving cogent reasons, based on the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.3-certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner, Ex.A.4-admission and discharge card of the petitioner, Ex.X.1-case sheet of the petitioner, and Ex.X.2-check x-ray, the Tribunal considered the disability of the petitioner as 15% and taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- p.m. i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum as well as the age of the petitioner as 29 years and by applying the multiplier ‘18’ for the age group of the petitioner as per II Schedule of the Act, the Tribunal arrived the loss of further earnings of the petitioner at Rs.97,200/- (Rs.36,000/- x disability 15% x multiplier ‘18’). Apart from that, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses, Rs.22,800/- was awarded towards conveyance, extra nourishment, attendant charges and special diet, and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. Apart from that, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses, Rs.22,800/- was awarded towards conveyance, extra nourishment, attendant charges and special diet, and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. In total, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. 16. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry also as he stopped the lorry without giving any signals. In cross examination, the petitioner as P.W.1 admitted that the accident took place due to stationed lorry which is in front of the offending vehicle. So, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and accordingly, fastened 50% liability on the stationed lorry and the remaining 50% liability on the respondents herein, as such, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards compensation and directed the respondents to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal jointly and severally, as it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal also observed that as the petitioner failed to add the insured and insurer of the stationed lorry as parties to the claim petition, the petitioner has to forego the remaining 50% compensation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal in its order and the appeal is devoid of merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the order and decree dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No. 527 of 2011. No order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.