JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/appellants. 2. This appeal is directed by the appellants/APSRTC against order and decree dated 29.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.1069 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 3. The petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act 1988, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.02.2009 at about 2.00 PM involving RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009. 4. The case of the claimant is that he was travelling in an auto on 10.02.2009 at about 2.00 PM; the auto reached a place near Adarsh Nagar Junction; RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009 herein after referred as offending vehicle was coming from Tekkali towards Visakhapatnam; the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto; as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam; the petitioner suffered fracture of 1 and 2 ribs and deformity of left clavicle; on account of the injuries the claimant suffering from breathing problems and therefore suffered partial permanent disability 40%. The claimant would suffer with breathing problems during winter, he has to use mask throughout life and cannot do hardwork. The claimant was student, studying 10th class at the time of accident. Hence, he filed the claim petition. 5. The respondent/RTC filed counter contenting that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the auto and there was no negligence of the driver of the bus; compensation claimed by the petitioner is excess. 6. In the light of the above rival contentions, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trail: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of petitioner, the petitioner’s father was examined as PW-1, petitioner was examined as PW-4, the doctor who treated the petitioner and issued the disability certificate, were examined as PW-2 and 3 respectively. Exs.A1 to A4 and X1 to X4 were marked for the petitioner. 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of petitioner, the petitioner’s father was examined as PW-1, petitioner was examined as PW-4, the doctor who treated the petitioner and issued the disability certificate, were examined as PW-2 and 3 respectively. Exs.A1 to A4 and X1 to X4 were marked for the petitioner. No evidence neither oral nor documents were placed for the respondents. 8. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the bus, the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the compensation, and held that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,33,631/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit towards just compensation, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident. 9. The appellant/RTC contention is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctors, and wrongly fixed the age of the petitioner for assessing the negligence and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. 10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: The petitioner/claimant examined himself as PW-4 before the learned Tribunal. His evidence would establish that the accident was occurred due to rash driving of the APSRTC bus. Police registered a case, conducted investigation, and laid police report (Charge Sheet), and the driver of APSRTC was arrayed as accused in the police report. No contra evidence was placed by the appellant/APSRTC. 12. The driver of the APSRTC bus was not examined to speak about the manner, in which the accident was occurred. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the APSRTC bus by the driver. 13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal on the said aspect. 14. When coming to the assessment of compensation, the evidence of claimant would disclose that he was studying 10th class at the time of accident. 13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal on the said aspect. 14. When coming to the assessment of compensation, the evidence of claimant would disclose that he was studying 10th class at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal considered his age at the time of accident as 15 years. The evidence of doctors coupled with Ex.A3 wound certificate, Ex.X1 case sheet, Ex.A2 and Ex.X4 disability certificate, and also Ex.X3 X-ray filed by the claimant would disclose that the claimant suffered fracture of ribs and left clavicle in the motor vehicle accident. On account of the same, he suffered partial permanent disability, which is assessed at 40%. 15. The evidence of doctor, who treated the petitioner and the doctor, who issued the disability certificate, would establish that on account of the fracture to the ribs and left clavicle suffered by the petitioner, he has to use mask all through his life, and he was also use inhaler to maintain lung condition, as lung was damaged due to fracture of the ribs. Their evidence also would establish that he will suffer when breathing during winter season due to the damage of lungs, and he cannot do any hard work. Therefore, the doctor assessed the same as partial permanent disability of 40%. 16. The learned Tribunal considering the fact that the petitioner was student studying 10th class at the time of accident, treated as he was non-earning member and relying on the Division Bench judgment of High Court in Setti Chandrasekhar and another Vs. Mohammad Gouse and another, 2011 ACJ 2403 , fixed his income notionally at Rs.12,000/- per month and considering that he was studying 1st year B.Tech by date of his evidence, treated his income at Rs.7,200/- per month and applied multiplier ‘15’, as his age was 15 years at the time of accident and assessed the loss of income due to partial permanent disability at Rs.3,24,000/-. 17. Therefore, the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as a non-earning member at Rs.7,200/- per month only and applied multiplier ‘15’, considering the age as 15 years instead of 18 years. In those circumstances, the contention of the APSRTC that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive, is not tenable. 18. 17. Therefore, the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as a non-earning member at Rs.7,200/- per month only and applied multiplier ‘15’, considering the age as 15 years instead of 18 years. In those circumstances, the contention of the APSRTC that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive, is not tenable. 18. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.84,361/- towards expenditure for medical treatment basing on Ex.A4 proved through the doctors. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs.4,33,361/- towards just compensation for personal injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident. 19. 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. 20. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal be dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 29.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.1069 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 29.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.1069 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.