JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 31.12.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1111 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Tribunal in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle rules filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, awarded a sum of Rs.7,51,398/- as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1 in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 14.03.2012. 2. The appellant herein, is no other than respondent No. 2 in M.V.O.P. No. 1111 of 2012 i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. 3. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimant/petitioner, in brief, is that: (i) She is permanent resident of Rajivanagar, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. She is residing at Sai Nagar, Chodimella Gramapanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. She was aged about 25 years by the time of the accident. She was hale and healthy by the time of accident. She was doing agricultural coolie work and she was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. (ii) On 14.03.2012 at about 11.30 p.m., at the in-gate of the RTC bus complex of Jangareddigudem, the petitioner and another woman were going into the bus stand on the extreme left side. One A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6431, coming from Tadepalligudem to Jangareddigudem, driven by respondent No. 1/driver in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed against the petitioner and another. The petitioner fell down on the road and the bus ran over the right ankle of the petitioner and she was dragged to some distance on the road. The petitioner sustained crush injury to right ankle up to the knee and other multiple bleeding injuries all over the body. Finally, her right leg up to knee from foot was amputated. Accident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. She was taken to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem after the accident, from there she was referred to Prasad Hospitals, Tadepalligudem as the injuries are severe in nature. Finally, her right leg up to knee from foot was amputated. Accident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. She was taken to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem after the accident, from there she was referred to Prasad Hospitals, Tadepalligudem as the injuries are severe in nature. She was treated as inpatient and she underwent major operation to her right leg and her right leg was amputated up to knee from the foot. She spent Rs.50,000/- for her medicines and treatment and extra-nourishment. The petitioner is permanently disabled and lost her total earning capacity. The accident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. The Station House officer, Jangareddigudem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 71 of 2012 for the offence under Section 338 IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had a valid driving license at the time of accident. He is working under respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6431. Hence, both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. It is the respondent No. 2, who contested the claim petition. Contention of the respondent No. 2 in brief is nothing but denying the averments in the petition. The further contention is that the bus entered into bus stand at in-gate slowly, cautiously and by blowing horn. At that time, two women with a boy tried to cross the in-gate road, in confusion mind and dashed each other and the petitioner fell down in a pit and received injuries. There was no collusion between the petitioner and the bus and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver/respondent No. 1. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. There was no collusion between the petitioner and the bus and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver/respondent No. 1. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 14.03.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. near RTC Bus stand, Eluru road, Jangareddigudem village and Mandal, West Godavari District was due to rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6431 being driven by its driver/respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 to A.7 and Ex.X1 were marked. No evidence was let in on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2. 9. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant and against the respondents jointly and severally and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,51,398/- directing the respondent No. 2 to deposit the award amount along with costs and accrued interest, within one month and on such deposit, the petitioner can withdraw Rs.3,51,398/- and rest of the amount shall be kept in F.D. for a period of two (2) years and after that she can withdraw with accrued interest. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the unsuccessful respondent No. 2 i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 10. In the light of the contentions advanced by both sides and in the light of the grounds of appeal, the points that arise for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioner before the Tribunal proved that that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle and whether the petitioner received injuries in consequence thereafter? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, whether the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or excessive as claimed by the appellant? (3) Whether the award dated, 31.12.2015 is sustainable under Law and facts? Point Nos. 1 to 3: 11. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, whether the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or excessive as claimed by the appellant? (3) Whether the award dated, 31.12.2015 is sustainable under Law and facts? Point Nos. 1 to 3: 11. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the defence of the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal was that the petitioner along with another woman and a boy tried to enter into the gate at the bus stand and due to confusion the aforesaid persons dashed against each other and the petitioner fell down in a pit and received injuries and she contributed to the accident as such. The learned Tribunal did not consider the defence of the respondent No. 2. The Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 17 while computing the loss of future earnings and further erred in awarding Rs.47,898/- and erred in awarding pecuniary damages of Rs.6,88,500/- and wrongly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. He would submit that at any rate, the compensation so awarded is excessive, as such, the award is liable to be interfered with. 12. Sri S. Srikanth, learned counsel representing the learned counsel appearing the respondent No. 1/claimant, would contend that the defence of the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal is nothing but frivolous, alleging that the claimant received injuries by felling into a pit. The petitioner received crush injury from ankle to knee, which resulted into amputation of the right leg up to knee part. Such the injury could not have been occurred by felling into a pit. Apart from this, respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2 did not enter into the evidence box. Evidence on record proves the rash and negligent act against the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal arrived at the loss of earnings by considering the income of the petitioner as agricultural coolie as that of Rs.4,000/- which is reasonable. The Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier theory of 17, as such the appeal is devoid of merits, as such it is liable to dismissed. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is like to deal with as to whether the claimant proved the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier theory of 17, as such the appeal is devoid of merits, as such it is liable to dismissed. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is like to deal with as to whether the claimant proved the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner got filed her chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her chief examination, Ex.A1 to A.4 were marked. Ex.A1 was attested copy of FIR. Ex.A2 was copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3 was original disability certificate. Ex.A4 was charge sheet filed against the respondent No. 1. PW-2 was the person who gave treatment to the petitioner by conducting surgery by amputating the right leg up to knee level. PW-3 was the medical officer in Government Hospital, who examined the petitioner and initially given treatment and referred her for expert treatment. PW-4 was the person who examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate. 14. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW-1, she deposed that they got down near petrol bunk, which is close to the bus stand, which is a crowded area. Bus was proceeding towards bus stand from Tadepalligudem to Jangareddiguem. She denied that she deposing false. It is to be noted that the contention of the respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner and another person and a child dashed with each other and in a confusing state of mind, the petitioner fell into a pit and received injuries. The defence of respondent No. 2 is denied by the PW-1/petitioner in cross-examination. Respondent No. 2 did not enter into the witness box. Respondent No. 1 for obvious reasons remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2 had every control over the respondent No. 1 being the employer and he did not choose to examine respondent No. 1 as his witness. On the other hand, a perusal of Ex.A1 and A4 reveals that police after due investigation filed charge sheet against respondent alleging rash and negligent driving. So, the contention of the appellant that Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent No. 1 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is devoid of merits. Contention of the appellant that the petitioner contributed to the accident is nothing but baseless. 15. So, the contention of the appellant that Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent No. 1 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is devoid of merits. Contention of the appellant that the petitioner contributed to the accident is nothing but baseless. 15. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that evidence on record proves that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle. 16. There is no dispute that respondent No. 2 is the employer and respondent No. 1 is the employee. On account of the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1, there is no dispute that the petitioner received injuries. It is quitely evident from the evidence of PW-3, who initially treated the petitioner and issued Ex.A2 wound certificate. PW-2 was the person who performed surgery on the right leg and amputated the leg. PW-4 was the person who issued disability certificate. So, by virtue of the above, it is also proved that petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner, there is no dispute that according to Ex.A5, the petitioner incurred medical expenditure of Rs.13,698/-. Further according to Ex.X1-final bill of a sum of Rs.34,200/- was incurred. Except putting a suggestion that Ex.A5 to A.7 were fabricated, there remained nothing in support of the contention of the respondent No. 2. PW-2 categorically testified the nature of the treatment that was given to the petitioner. He testified that under Ex.A5, the medical bill was Rs.13,698/-. He further testified the medical expenditure under Ex.X1 as that of Rs.34,200/-. He categorically clarified in the cross-examination that their Hospital has no Arogryasree coverage benefit. Nothing is suggested to PW-2 that Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 were fabricated documents. He further testified that Ex.A6 as M.L.C. prescription issued by their Hospital. He further testified that Ex.A7 is the discharge summary. So, by virtue of evidence of PW-1, PW-2, coupled with Ex.A5 to A7 and Ex.X1, the petitioner proved the medical expenditure incurred by her as that of Rs.47,898/-. 18. The petitioner examined PW-4 who issued disability certificate. As seen from Ex.A3, it was issued by medical board, in which PW-4 was a member. So, by virtue of evidence of PW-1, PW-2, coupled with Ex.A5 to A7 and Ex.X1, the petitioner proved the medical expenditure incurred by her as that of Rs.47,898/-. 18. The petitioner examined PW-4 who issued disability certificate. As seen from Ex.A3, it was issued by medical board, in which PW-4 was a member. Evidence of PW-4, coupled with Ex.A3, reveals that in case of below knee amputation of right lower limb, which is a permanent disability, the percentage of disability is 75%. PW-1 can move only with the crutches and she cannot move as an ordinary person. The percentage of disability is decided by a group of Doctors. Evidence of PW-4 has corroboration from Ex.A3, which discloses that PW-4 was a member and one Dr.S.V.Siva Kumar was Medical Superintendent and one Dr.Bandela Venugopal was Civil Surgeon. So, it is issued by medical board consisting of three persons. During the course of cross-examination of PW-4, he testified that he is orthopedic surgeon. He denied that he gave wrong information. There is no merit in the aforesaid suggestion given to PW-4. So, the petitioner quietly proved that the percentage of the disability sustained by her is 75%. 19. Though petitioner claimed that she was getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as an agricultural coolie, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the aforesaid income. As evident from the award, the Tribunal was of the view that from the admission of the petitioner she was earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day whenever she attends coolie work. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal considered monthly income of the petitioner on notional basis as that of Rs.4,500/-. Considering the 75% of the disability and considering the multiplier of 17, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), in the light of the age of the petitioner as 25 years, the Tribunal multiplied the amount of Rs.40,500/- i.e. equivalent to 75% of the disability with 17 and arrived at figure of Rs.6,88,500/- and further the Tribunal considered Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. 20. Throughout the enquiry, the respondent No. 2 did not dispute the age of the petitioner as 25 years. There was no dispute that she was attending coolie work. 20. Throughout the enquiry, the respondent No. 2 did not dispute the age of the petitioner as 25 years. There was no dispute that she was attending coolie work. There was no dispute on account of permanent disability i.e. amputation of right leg up to knee level, she is incapable of attending agricultural coolie works, which she was doing earlier. In my considered view, the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the petitioner prior to the accident on notional basis as that of Rs.4,500/- per month, which is nothing but reasonable. The contention of the appellant that the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 17 deserves no merits. 21. Further, the appellant has no basis to contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- as damages, towards pain and suffering. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely the appeal is devoid of merits. The Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.7,51,398/- vide award, dated 31.12.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1111 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, which is nothing but reasonable. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Tribunal. 22. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.