JUDGMENT : The present MACMA is directed by the appellant against the award, dated 16.08.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.934 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Tanuku (“Tribunal” for short), where under the Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act” for short) to award compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with regard to the injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 05.09.2007, awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with proportionate costs with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of deposit. 2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3) The case of the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.934 of 2009 according to the averments in the petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act r/w 455 of MV Rules is as follows: The petitioner who is the injured is an employee at Dubai by the date of accident. She was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. Due to unfortunate accident, she suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 05.09.2007 the petitioner along with her daughter hired a car bearing No.AP-5-U-8383 to have a pilgrimage tour to Annavaram and Simhachalam temples and started journey by 4 a.m. When the car reached at Kathipudi flyover Bridge down, near parking place all of a sudden RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-355 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner from Kathipudi bus stand side and hit the car backside due to which the car turned turtle. The petitioner received injuries on backside of the neck, left side eye and both the parts swollen. There was bleeding from nose and mouth. The driver of the car also received injuries to the nose. Both were shifted to Government Hospital, Kathipudi by 108 Ambulance where they had first aid and later she was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. Later, the petitioner was shifted to Ratna Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr.K. Vijaya Kumar MS (Ortho) Rajahmundry, for better treatment. The petitioner spent more than Rs.50,000/- for treatment, medicines and surgery, etc. The petitioner was also treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but her health could not be restored to its normalcy. Later, the petitioner was shifted to Ratna Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr.K. Vijaya Kumar MS (Ortho) Rajahmundry, for better treatment. The petitioner spent more than Rs.50,000/- for treatment, medicines and surgery, etc. The petitioner was also treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but her health could not be restored to its normalcy. She was bedridden and became permanently disabled and unable to attend on her normal duties. The statement of the petitioner’s daughter was recorded by Annavaram Police. They registered a case in Crime No.116/2007 under Section 338 IPC on receiving intimation from Safe Emergency Hospital. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu, which is pending. The accident occurred is entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The first Respondent is the driver and second respondent is the owner, as such, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The petitioner is also entitled to interest at 12% per annum. Due to the accident and disability, the petitioner lost her job. Hence, this petition for compensation. 4) The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5) The second respondent/APSRTC got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioner has to prove that she worked as saleswomen at Dubai and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner also has to prove that she along with her daughter hired a car bearing No.AP-5-U-8383 on 05.09.2007 at 4 a.m., and reached to Kathipudi and that the RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-355 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car resulting in injuries and thereby the petitioner became permanently disabled. There is no rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent. Due to traffic jam at Kathipudi under the flyover bridge, the first respondent took diversion route towards Rajahmundry side and by negotiating to take turning towards Tuni, near the over bridge down, the first respondent observed one Ambassador car bearing No.AP-5-U-8383, which was coming on National Highway towards Visakhapatnam which was coming on the left side of the RTC bus, in a rash and negligent manner. Then the first respondent stopped the bus. Then the Ambassador car dashed at the left side bumper of the RTC bus and stopped at a distance after hitting the road divider. Then the first respondent stopped the bus. Then the Ambassador car dashed at the left side bumper of the RTC bus and stopped at a distance after hitting the road divider. The accident was occurred only due to the fault, rash and negligent act of the driver of the Ambassador car but not on the part of the first respondent. Immediately after accident, the Enquiry Committee of the second respondent proceeded, conducted enquiry and found that there is no liability to pay compensation by the respondents. The petitioner ought to have claimed compensation from the car driver and the Insurance Company of the car. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of action to file the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6) The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trail. (1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-355 driven by it”s driver i.e. the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the petitioner-injured is entitled to compensation, if so, what amount from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 7) The petitioner, during the course of trial, examined herself as P.W.1, examined P.W.2, who examined her and issued the disability certificate and further examined P.W.3, who gave treatment to her. She got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 during the course of evidence. The second respondent reported no oral evidence. Even no documents were marked on behalf of the second respondent. 8) The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with proportionate costs with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of deposit and that on such deposit, she is permitted to withdraw Rs.90,000/- and the balance amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of two years. The APSRTC/second respondent felt aggrieved of the above said order, filed the present MACMA. 9) During pendency of the present MACMA, the first respondent/petitioner died and pursuant to the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 09.11.2023, the legal representative of the original petitioner is brought on record to pursue the appeal. The APSRTC/second respondent felt aggrieved of the above said order, filed the present MACMA. 9) During pendency of the present MACMA, the first respondent/petitioner died and pursuant to the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 09.11.2023, the legal representative of the original petitioner is brought on record to pursue the appeal. 10) Now, in the light of the contentions advanced, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioner before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent in the claim in driving the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-355 and that she received injuries in the said accident and that she is entitled to compensation? (2) Whether the award, dated 16.08.2011 is sustainable under law and facts and there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11) The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal and she got filed her chief examination affidavit put forth the facts in tune with the averments in the petition. Through her examination, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 were marked. Ex.A.1 was attested copy of FIR. Ex.A.2 was attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.3 was attested copy of MVI report. Ex.A.4 was attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.5 was medical prescription. Ex.A.6 was bunch of medical bills. Ex.A.7 was discharge summary. Ex.A.8 was bunch of colour photos two in number. Ex.A.9 was disability certificate. Ex.A.10 was medical record. Ex.A.11 was Photostat copy of Pan Card. 12) Turning to the evidence of P.W.2, who examined the petitioner with regard to the disability certificate, deposed that he worked at Area Hospital, Bhimavaram and he was deputed to work at Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru for examination of patients by the Medical Board for issuing disability certificates. On 03.01.2009 he examined P.W.1, verified the wound certificate, discharge summary, X-rays, scanning reports and found that the disability is that of 45%. She cannot sit, squat, climbing staircase as a normal person. Ex.A.9 was the attested copy of disability certificate. 13) The petitioner examined P.W.3, Dr. M.V. Anand, who treated her and he deposed that he undertook MRI scanning of the petitioner which reveals that there was bulging of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7, discs causing indentation to cord and nueral canals. After giving treatment, he issued discharge summary which was also marked as Ex.A.7 and wound certificate under Ex.A.2. 13) The petitioner examined P.W.3, Dr. M.V. Anand, who treated her and he deposed that he undertook MRI scanning of the petitioner which reveals that there was bulging of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7, discs causing indentation to cord and nueral canals. After giving treatment, he issued discharge summary which was also marked as Ex.A.7 and wound certificate under Ex.A.2. He opined that on account of those injuries, the petitioner may get disability which may be permanent in nature throughout her life. 14) Sri Y. Phanibabu, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, during the course of hearing submits that the evidence on record would not disclose that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver i.e., first respondent in the claim and that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Further, the petitioner did not prove the disability as claimed and even there was an error in calculation of amounts awarded under the heads of compensation. With the above submissions, he would submit that the compensation is liable to be reduced. 15) Sri P.AN.V. Ravi Teja, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the third respondent, would contend that admittedly there was an error in calculation only to a tune of Rs.500/- under different heads. He would seek to defend the amount granted by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal with regard to multiple grievous injuries received by the petitioner only awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering and if the amount is enhanced in this regard, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal need not be reduced except to a tune of Rs.500/-. With the above submissions, he would seek to dismiss the MACMA. 16) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the petitioner before the Tribunal was able to prove the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle and that on account of it, she received grievous injuries. As seen from the cross examination part of P.W.1, she denied that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of her, but not on account of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., RTC Bus. She denied the same. As seen from the cross examination part of P.W.1, she denied that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of her, but not on account of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., RTC Bus. She denied the same. 17) It is to be noted that neither the first respondent who was the driver of the offending vehicle nor any representative of the second respondent stepped into witness box to rebut the evidence of P.W.1-injured coupled with the contents of documents that were marked through the examination of P.W.1. There was no dispute that basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.116 of 2007 was registered and it was investigated into and ultimately police filed a charge sheet vide original of Ex.A.4 alleging rash and negligent driving against the first respondent i.e., driver of offending vehicle. The outcome of the investigation was in favour of the petitioner. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, her evidence has corroboration with reference to Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.4. Further the injuries spoken to by her were supported by the contents of Ex.A.2 wound certificate. There was evidence of P.W.3 to the effect that he undertook MRI scanning and found bulging of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7, discs causing indentation to cord and nueral canals. According to him, after giving necessary treatment, he issued Ex.A.3-discharge summary and wound certificate under Ex.A.2. Thus, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 coupled with the above referred documentary evidence remained unrebutted. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the first respondent pertaining to the offending vehicle. 18) There is no dispute that the first respondent was the driver and the second respondent was the owner of APSRTC. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 19) Now, this Court would like to examine as to whether the compensation that was awarded needs any interference. 20) As seen from the claim, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses to hospitals. The case is that she was native of Tanuku. After the accident, she was taken to Government Hospital, Kathipudi and from there to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. Later, she was shifted to Ratna Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr. K. Vijaya Kumar MS (Ortho) Rajahmundry. The case is that she was native of Tanuku. After the accident, she was taken to Government Hospital, Kathipudi and from there to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. Later, she was shifted to Ratna Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr. K. Vijaya Kumar MS (Ortho) Rajahmundry. So, the petitioner was roaming around four stations after the accident. Hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenses. The petitioner was in need of special diet apart from taking regular medicines. The Tribunal after examining the claim was inclined to award a sum of Rs.6,000/- as against original request of Rs.10,000/-. The amounts under the aforesaid heads are nothing but reasonable which needs no interference. 21) Though the petitioner claimed the medical expenses to a tune of Rs.50,000/-, the Tribunal on considering Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, the medical bills awarded a sum of Rs.13,735/- and rounded off it to Rs.14,000/- which also needs no interference. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of earnings. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment and the impact of the injuries even the aforesaid sum awarded by the Tribunal as regards the loss of earnings during the period of treatment needs no interference. 22) It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 reveals the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner. The petitioner received injuries near the spinal card, as such, there was bulging of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7, discs and further it caused indentation to cord and nueral canals. It is quietly evident from Ex.A.7, discharge summary. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and this amount is to be appreciated with reference to further angles. 23) It is to be noted that the Tribunal negatived the theory of the petitioner that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal looking into the fact that the petitioner was a housewife took into the consideration a sum of Rs.15,000/- as annual earnings. Considering the nature of the injuries coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the Tribunal rightly considered the permanent disability as that of 45% as she received injury on the vital part of body i.e., spinal card. Considering the nature of the injuries coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the Tribunal rightly considered the permanent disability as that of 45% as she received injury on the vital part of body i.e., spinal card. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at the earnings of the petitioner as housewife at Rs.15,000/- per annum and considering the age of the petitioner, applied the multiplier “14”, as such, the Tribunal arrived at the earnings as that of Rs.2,10,000/- and assessed the loss of earnings at 45% disability as that of Rs.95,000/-. But, it shall be Rs.94,500/- only but not Rs.95,000/-. 24) It is to be noted that the Tribunal made findings that the petitioner did not prove the functional disability. When the order of the Tribunal runs so, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards functional disability which is not at all tenable. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant that he wanted to defend the amount that is granted by the Tribunal and his submission is that the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering for the grievous fractures received by the petitioner is meager and the amount need to be raised considerably, as such, there is no need to reduce the compensation awarded. This Court find force in this regard. Admittedly, the evidence of P.W.3 means that there was an injury to the spinal card i.e., bulging of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7, discs which resulted into indentation to cord and nueral canals. Considering the same, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- alone towards pain and suffering and the amount should be more. Considering the bulging of discs at the level of C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7 and further its impact in causing indentation to cord and nueral, a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering is justifiable, as such, if the amount under this head is enhanced, as above, there is no need to reduce the compensation even by considering that the amount of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards functional disability is not justifiable. 25) Having regard to the above, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal need no interference except the miscalculation in arriving at figure Rs.95,000/-instead of Rs.94,500/- towards loss of earnings on account of the permanent disability. 25) Having regard to the above, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal need no interference except the miscalculation in arriving at figure Rs.95,000/-instead of Rs.94,500/- towards loss of earnings on account of the permanent disability. 26) In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the award need to be modified only to the extent of Rs.500/-. 27) In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part reducing the compensation or Rs.1,80,000/- to that of Rs.1,79,500/- with proportionate costs and interest and the rest of terms of the award shall stand confirmed. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.