JUDGMENT : This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 15.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kakinada, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Tribunal as against the claim of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- made by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- against the respondents directing to deposit the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum within one month from the date of award, on such deposit, the petitioner can withdraw Rs.1,50,000/-, the balance is to be kept in F.D. for a period of two years. 2. The Appellants herein are no other than the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam and the Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 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 in the M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2014 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that: (i) On 08.03.2013 evening, the petitioner started for his duty on his motor cycle and was proceeding towards Bhanugudi Centre, Dolphin Hotel Corner to attend his duty at Manohar Lodge. When he reached Dolphin Hotel turning Kokila Centre, he was moving cautiously. At that time one R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 785 proceeding from R.T.C. Complex to Visakhapatnam via Kokila Centre, came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn and dashed against the petitioner from the opposite direction. Then the petitioner fell on the road with his motor bike and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and later to Venkata Chalapathi Hospital, Kakinada. The petitioner was treated by Dr.K.Vishnumurthy, Plastic Surgeon. The Government Hospital doctors conducted three surgeries and rods were inserted and he spent about Rs.1,00,000/- in the Hospital and he was there for a period of two months as inpatient. He was permanently disabled and he lost his employment. (ii) The Station House Officer, II Town Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2013 for the offence under Section 338 IPC. The petitioner is permanent resident of Madhuranagar, Kakinada. He was retired from Government Service. As on the date of accident, he was working as Supervisor in Manohar Lodge. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The petitioner is permanent resident of Madhuranagar, Kakinada. He was retired from Government Service. As on the date of accident, he was working as Supervisor in Manohar Lodge. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and controller of the Crime vehicle. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. 6. The respondent No.3 got filed counter denying the averments in the petition and resisting the claim of the petitioner. Contention of the respondent No.3 is that bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 785 belongs to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the said bus. On the date of accident, the bus was operating between Kakinada and Visakhapatnam (Non-Stop). It started from the R.T.C. complex and reached near Kokila Restaurant after crossing the Pallavelugu bus stop. The driver of the bus was driving the bus very slowly and cautiously. The petitioner, who was coming on his bike without observing the traffic, came opposite direction to the bus. On seeing the motor bike, the driver of the bus stopped it completely and the bus was in stationed position. The petitioner dashed the bus on the front side without having any control. There was no fault on the part of the driver. There was no accident as alleged. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the other allegations. 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 was due to rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No. AP 28 Z 785 by respondent No.1, resulting injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.10 and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. The contesting respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. 9. (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.10 and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. The contesting respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. 9. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,76,000/-, as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 10. Now in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioner before the Tribunal proved that that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 in driving A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 785 and in the accident, the petitioner received injuries? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation against the respondents and whether the award of the Tribunal is tenable under facts and Law? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. In the present M.A.C.M.A., the notice against the respondent No.2 was dispensed with on filing memo by the learned counsel for the appellant on 12.12.2023. Respondent No.2 is no other than the driver of the offending vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 12. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that according to the case of the respondent No.3/appellant, the accident was occurred as the petitioner negligently driven his motor bike and he contributed a lot to the accident and the Tribunal did not consider this aspect properly. The Tribunal erroneously held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 in the claim. There was no dispute that the petitioner was drawing pension as he is a retired employee. There was no loss of earnings according to him. The Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- from 07.04.2013 to 23.04.2013 towards loss of earning, though the occupation of the petitioner after retirement was not proved. The medical expenditure was excessively claimed and the Tribunal erred in granting such an amount. The Tribunal erred in allowing compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and further in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability without any valid medical certificate. The medical expenditure was excessively claimed and the Tribunal erred in granting such an amount. The Tribunal erred in allowing compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and further in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability without any valid medical certificate. With the above submissions, he would submit that the quantum of compensation is liable to be reduced considerably. 12. Sri A.Srinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant, would contend that the respondent No.1 in the claim petition did not enter into the witness box to depose contrary regarding the manner of accident. Even respondent No.3 did not enter into the witness box and the Tribunal took into consideration the F.I.R and the outcome of the investigation and held that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1. With regard to medical expenditure, petitioner submitted Ex.A5 to A7 to a tune of Rs.1,29,229/- and it was rightly considered. The petitioner suffered grievous injury which made him to undergo for repeated surgeries by an Orthopedic surgeon and also by a Plastic Surgeon and the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering plus Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability is just and reasonable. With the above submissions, he would seeks to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal. 13. PW.1 in his chief examination, put forth the facts in tune with the petition averments. Through his examination, Ex.A1 to A10 are marked. Ex.A1 is attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 is attested copy of wound certificate issued by Government General Hospital. Ex.A3 is attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4 is photograph showing the injury of the petitioner. Ex.A5-88 Medical bills worth of Rs.65,109/-. Ex.A6 is certificate of Government hospital, dt.18.05.2013. Ex.A7 is essentiality certificate issued by Dr.K.Vishnu Murthy, dt.30.04.2013. Ex.A8 is discharge summary issued by Venkata Chalapathi Nursing Home. Ex.A9 is Emergency certificate issued by Venkata Chalapathi Nursing Home. Ex.A10 is Essentiality certificate issued by G.G.H., Kakinada. 14. The petitioner examined PW.2 the Plastic surgeon, who attended surgical procedure on him. According to the evidence of PW.2, on 03.04.2013 Narla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkatarao was admitted in their hospital for treatment of post traumatic raw area left foot. After investigation and medical treatment, he was operated on 07.04.2013 i.e., split thickness skin grafting. After skin graft taken he was discharged from the hospital on 23.04.2013. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the patient. After investigation and medical treatment, he was operated on 07.04.2013 i.e., split thickness skin grafting. After skin graft taken he was discharged from the hospital on 23.04.2013. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the patient. Ex.A7-is the essentiality certificate, Ex.A8-is the discharge summary and Ex.A9-is the Emergency certificate issued by him. Ex.A5-is the medical bills except one medical bill, Government General Hospital Kakinada, other bills are pertaining to their hospital. Ex.A5-is also including the hospital charges incurred by the injured for an amount of Rs.41,000/- bill No.23 dated 23.04.2013. He also gave a bill for total amount of Rs.57,196/-incurred by the petitioner under Ex.A7. Wound is heeled. But there is a loss of layers of foot that leads to very thin fore foot and having lifelong discomfort for walking. 15. The petitioner further examined PW.3/Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, Government General Hospital, Kakinada and according to him, he examined the petitioner when he was admitted in the hospital and he found fracture on both bones left leg commuted fracture lower 1/3rd level with complete sole flap of left foot is deficit due to crush injury. He underwent surgery on 18.03.2013 for left foot debridement and K-wire fixation of sole flap and closed interlocking nailing of tibia left leg and rush nail of fibula. He was referred to higher centre as fore foot and bone is not well covered for micro surgical flap cover. He was discharged on 03.04.2013 with an advise for bed rest of three months. Ex.X2 is the case sheet. He again came to Government General Hospital as an outpatient on 18.05.2015 and he was advised for X-rays and X-rays were taken for tibia and fibula for foot. Fracture was healed but there is flap on the sole for which he is having difficult for walk. There is no cushion effect for the sole. Ex.X3 is the O.P. chit. Ex.X4 is the two X-ray films. This case is not treated under Aarogya Sree scheme. The petitioner was advised to purchase the required nails and implants from outside pharmacy. Medicines are purchased under the prescription given by him in Ex.A5. 16. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the evidence on record proved the rash and negligent act against the respondent No.1. As pointed out, PW.1 put forth the facts in the pleadings. Medicines are purchased under the prescription given by him in Ex.A5. 16. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the evidence on record proved the rash and negligent act against the respondent No.1. As pointed out, PW.1 put forth the facts in the pleadings. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that he was proceeding from Dolphin Hotel towards Bhanugudi Junction at the time of accident. He deposed that at the time of accident, he was overtaking the first bus and another bus came from behind and he was in the middle of two buses at the time of accident. He denied that he hit the stationed R.T.C. bus and fell on ground and received injuries. It is to be noted that there is no dispute about the fact that, police registered F.I.R. No.40 of 2013 of II Town Traffic Police Station against respondent No.1 and after investigation, filed the charge sheet alleging the rash and negligent act against respondent No.1. It is to be noted that according to the respondent No.3, there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 driven the vehicle carefully and it is the petitioner who hit the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus in a negligent driving. As seen from the counter of the respondent No.3, he wanted to champion the cause of the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 did not choose to contest the claim being the driver of the offending vehicle for the reasons best known to him. Respondent No.3 did not enter in to witness box in support of his defence. So, evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3-attested copy of charge sheet remained unrebutted. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1. 17. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2-wound certificate and further the discharge summary under Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 goes to prove that for the injuries received, the petitioner underwent repeated surgical procedures. So, the petitioner was able to prove that in the motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle, being driven by the respondent No.1, he received grievous injuries. 18. There is no dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the vehicle. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly severally liable to pay compensation. So, the petitioner was able to prove that in the motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle, being driven by the respondent No.1, he received grievous injuries. 18. There is no dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the vehicle. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly severally liable to pay compensation. 19. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, PWs.1 to 3 testified about the surgical procedures done on PW.1. An Orthopedic Surgeon as well as a Plastic Surgeon attended the surgical procedure. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, he testified about the medical expenditure under Exs.A5, A6 and A7. The contention of the respondent No.3 that medical expenditure was excessively shown is not at all tenable. The medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner was in accordance with the Ex.X1-case sheet, Ex.A8-discharge summary and Ex.A9-Emergency certificate. In my considered view, the Tribunal rightly considered the medical expenditure under Ex.A5 to A7 to a sum of Rs.1,29,229/-. The Tribunal considered the transport expenses as that of Rs.1,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,000/-. 20. The Tribunal considered the loss of earnings during the period of treatment as inpatient i.e., from 07.04.2013 to 23.04.2013 and further earlier spell of 09.03.2013 to 03.04.2013 as that of Rs.20,000/-. It is to be noted that PW.1 admitted that he was receiving pension as on the date of accident and on the account of his injury, his pension was not disturbed. Though he pleaded that he is working as supervisor in a named lodge, but no semblance of proof was filed by the petitioner to show that he was working in a lodge and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. So, when the petitioner miserably failed to show income during the period of treatment, but he was receiving pension as it is, in my considered view, the compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of earnings during the period of treatment is liable to be disallowed. The Tribunal had no proper basis to award as sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of earnings as above. 21. Coming to the compensation for pain and suffering, the Tribunal considered the pain and suffering as that of Rs.25,000/-and further considered Rs.1,00,000/- for continuing permanent disability. It is to be noted that the petitioner underwent two surgical procedures. He was treated as inpatient in two spells in this regard. 21. Coming to the compensation for pain and suffering, the Tribunal considered the pain and suffering as that of Rs.25,000/-and further considered Rs.1,00,000/- for continuing permanent disability. It is to be noted that the petitioner underwent two surgical procedures. He was treated as inpatient in two spells in this regard. The petitioner did not produce any disability certificate to show that on account of the so called disability, his earnings are affected in any way. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal instead of considering compensation for pain and suffering and discomfort, but considered that there was a permanent disability in the light of the evidence of PW.3. But infact the Tribunal did not appreciate the medical evidence in a proper perspective. According to the evidence of PW.2, there is a loss of layers of foot that leads to very thin forefoot and petitioner has lifelong discomfort for walking. According to the evidence of PW.3, patient was referred to higher center as forefoot and bone is not well covered for micro surgical flap cover. According to the X-rays, the fracture was healed but there is a flap on the sole for which he is having difficulty for walk. According to PW.3, there is no cushion effect for the sole. So, by virtue of evidence of PWs.2 and 3, what is evident is that while walking, the petitioner would have no cushion effect of the sole for the left foot. The Tribunal ought to have considered the compensation under the head of pain and suffering and lifelong discomfort, instead of considering the amount under the head of permanent disability. If the surgical procedure spoken to by PW.2 and 3 and discomfort to the left foot of the PW.1 is considered, the overall the amount of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- is quitely is reasonable. The Tribunal instead of assessing the compensation towards pain and suffering and discomfort though out the life, assessed the compensation under the head of permanent disability though there is no permanent disability, so as to affect the earnings. Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner can be taken as sufficient, looking into the nature of surgeries and the discomfort to the left foot of PW.1. Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner can be taken as sufficient, looking into the nature of surgeries and the discomfort to the left foot of PW.1. The appellant wanted to defeat the claim of this amount on the ground that there was no permanent disability. But in the light of the reasons furnished supra, in such amount of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- is quite just and reasonable looking in to the nature of the injury. 22. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that, from amounts under the heads of compensation, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment is only liable to be disallowed. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- instead of Rs.2,76,000/- and the compensation is liable to be reduced accordingly. 23. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs, reducing the compensation under award, dated 15.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kakinada from Rs.2,76,000/- to Rs.2,56,000/-and the rest of the order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall stand confirmed. The appellants herein and the respondent No.1 in the M.V.O.P.102 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kakinada who is the respondent No.2 shall deposit the rest of the compensation in terms of the order of this Court within one month from the date of order and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.