JUDGMENT : Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 2. The appeal is directed by the claimant against the order and decree dated 25.10.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 4. The claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.09.2009 at about 06.00 p.m. on Punganur-Madanapalle Road. 5. The case of the claimant is that he was aged 40 years, working as coolie, earning Rs.200/- per day; on 14.09.2009 at about 06.00 p.m. he was travelling on his TVS Moped bearing No.AP 03H 0071; he reached a place near Bonepally cross on Punganur-Madanapalle Road; the 1st respondent was the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28X 7806; the bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle; the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries; he was shifted to Government Hospital, Madanapalle; police registered FIR in Cr.No.163/2009; police investigated the case and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable U/s.338 I.P.C.; the claimant sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident; the claimant lost his earning capacity; hence, he filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; liability to pay compensation; and contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant; the driver of the bus was not having driving licence; the amount claimed by the claimant is excessive. 8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28X 7806 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident on 14.09.2009 in which the petitioner sustained injuries? 2. 8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28X 7806 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident on 14.09.2009 in which the petitioner sustained injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and by whom? 3. To what relief? 9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 to 3 respectively and 12 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1 with consent. 10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the physical disability suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, functional disability on loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering and other miscellaneous amounts, and awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the owner and Insurance Company, fastening liability jointly and severally. 11. The appellant/claimant filed the appeal challenging the above order and decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not a just compensation. 12. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of doctor (P.W-2) and the medical bills produced by the claimant, and awarded lesser amount towards medical expenses. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of earnings on account of physical disability suffered by the claimant, inspite of evidence of the doctor and Ex.A-11 disability certificate. 13. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal in its order, on reasons refused to grant amount covered by the medical bills, as those bills are repeatedly disclose that the amount was paid towards needles, cotton and other surgical material even after surgery, and further, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal, as the learned Tribunal basing on the evidence awarded just compensation. 14. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal did not award just compensation to the claimant? 2. To what relief? 15. POINT No.1: The first contention of the appellant/claimant is that the learned Tribunal failed to award amount covered by the medical bills. The claimant filed Ex.A-6, Ex.A-8, Ex.A-10 and Ex.A-12 bills towards medical expenses and medical treatment. P.W-2 was the doctor, who treated the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Ex.A-6 was issued for Rs.1,45,000/-. Whereas, Ex.A-8 was issued for Rs.27,470/-, Ex.A-10 for Rs.19,000/- and Ex.A-12 for Rs.30,056/-. Ex.A-6 is a consolidated bill as observed by the learned Tribunal. Break-up of the amounts claimed in Ex.A-6 were referred by the learned Tribunal. When coming to the other bills, the learned Tribunal observed that Ex.A-8 would disclose that those bills were issued for purchase of cotton, needles, gloves and bandage, which were already included towards costs of surgery in Ex.A-6 cash bill. So also, Ex.A-12 bill would disclose that it was issued for purchase of cotton, bandage and gloves i.e., material required at the time of surgery, which was already covered under Ex.A-6. However, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses inspite of Rs.1,45,000/-covered by Ex.A-6 medical bill. In that view of the matter, as the claimant examined the doctor and proved Ex.A-6 bill, which was issued towards expenditure for the surgery and medical treatment, the balance amount to be awarded to the claimant towards expenses for medical treatment which is Rs.55,000/-. 16. When coming to the loss of earnings on account of the physical disability suffered by the claimant, to prove the physical disability suffered by him on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, examined doctor P.Hari Babu a P.W-2. The wound certificate was marked as Ex.A-3. Permanent disability certificate was marked as Ex.A-11. The evidence of P.W-2 as observed by the learned Tribunal would disclose that the claimant has undergone surgery and percentage of disability was referred to 50%. 17. P.W-2 was the doctor, who treated the claimant for the injuries suffered by him. The evidence of doctor would disclose that the claimant sustained two fractures. One in left tibia and other is in fibula. 17. P.W-2 was the doctor, who treated the claimant for the injuries suffered by him. The evidence of doctor would disclose that the claimant sustained two fractures. One in left tibia and other is in fibula. On account of the same, surgery was performed and after healing of the wound, doctor assessed the disability as 50%, and the functional disability is shortening of left leg with detreating of fingers with loss of partial sensation of the foot, and he cannot do any manual labour work, as he shall use walker for normal walking also. 18. The contention of the claimant is that he is working as coolie and on account of the physical disability suffered by him, now he is not in a position to do the coolie work, as he was doing prior to the date of accident, therefore, he suffered loss of income on account of the physical disability. 19. The leaned Tribunal did not consider these aspects, and discarded the evidence of P.W-2 on the ground that the claimant did not produce certificate issued by the medical board, though the claimant placed the disability certificate issued by P.W-2, and though there is no contra evidence to show that P.W-2 issued Ex.A-11 for the sake of claim petition, without giving any treatment to the claimant. The evidence on record would show that P.W-2 is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, working in BOTH Hospital, Tirupathi, and the evidence on record would disclose that the claimant took treatment in the said hospital and surgery was also conducted in the same hospital. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of P.W-2 and the certificate issued by him regarding disability suffered by the claimant. 20. The claimant contention is that he was working as a coolie. The accident was occurred in the year 2009. The petitioner was working in rural area. Considering these circumstances, his income can be fixed notionally at Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, his monthly income would come to Rs.3,000/- per month. The age of the claimant was 40 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . Therefore, his monthly income would come to Rs.3,000/- per month. The age of the claimant was 40 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , this Court is of the opinion that 50% of the above income can be awarded to the claimant towards loss of earnings on account of the physical disability, which would come to Rs.36,000x15 = Rs.5,40,000/- and 50% is Rs.2,70,000/-. 21. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. It can be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 22. In the light of foregoing discussion, the claimant in all entitled to Rs.2,70,000 + 50,000 + 1,45,000 = Rs.4,65,000/- towards just compensation, instead of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. 23. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7. 5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, the point is answered. 24. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal be allowed partly, by modifying the order and decree dated 25.10.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the order and decree dated 25.10.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi, holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, and Sixty Five Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, and Sixty Five Thousand only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had already deposited some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. 27. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, and Sixty Five Thousand only), and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.