JUDGMENT A.V Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 14.09.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2009, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa ('Tribunal' for short), whereunder the Tribunal as against the claim of the claimant to award a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation with regard to the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 13.08.2007, awarded a sum of Rs.4,58,905/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 02.06.2010 and from 01.09.2014 to till date of deposit and directing the respondent Nos. 1 to3 to deposit the compensation amount with proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of judgment. The claimant feeling that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and sufficient, filed the present MACMA, with a prayer to enhance the compensation. 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 claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments in the claim, is; (i) that the claimant was aged about 44 years at the time of accident and she was hale and healthy and attending to her profession with ease and comfort. (ii) On 13.08.2007 claimant after completion of duty as Head Teacher in M.P.P. School, Machugaripalli, intended to return back to her house. In that process claimant boarded an auto bearing No.A.P.04-V-6369. The auto reached near R.C.M. School, Mydukur side. At that time, School bus bearing No.A.P.27-W-7418 ('offending vehicle' for short) belonging to second respondent, dashed the auto in which claimant was travelling. As a result, claimant sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. (iii) The claimant was shifted immediately to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. Later, she took treatment in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. She also took treatment in Yashoda Hospital at Hyderabad from 15.08.2007 to 22.08.2007. She spent Rs.1,71,876/-during first phase of treatment to her. She again was admitted in Yashoda Hospital on 26.08.2007 and was discharged on 31.08.2007. She underwent post operative treatment in Yashoda Hospital and spent a sum of Rs.24,977/- during said phase of treatment. She also took treatment in Yashoda Hospital at Hyderabad from 15.08.2007 to 22.08.2007. She spent Rs.1,71,876/-during first phase of treatment to her. She again was admitted in Yashoda Hospital on 26.08.2007 and was discharged on 31.08.2007. She underwent post operative treatment in Yashoda Hospital and spent a sum of Rs.24,977/- during said phase of treatment. Again she was admitted in Yashoda Hospital on 17.09.2007 as In-patient and spent a sum of Rs.11,116/- during third phase of treatment and she was discharged on 19.09.2007. (iv) In spite of better treatment and care, the implants got failed and there was non-union of humorous, as such, the claimant was forced to approach Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad on 27.11.2007. After undergoing tests, the Doctors opined that there is non-union of fracture of right humorous with implants failure with infections. She was forced to undergo further operation for removal of the earlier implants and again for fixing new implants. Thus, the claimant spent Rs.1,06,539/- during 4th phase of treatment. She again approached Yashoda Hospital on 06.08.2008 for removal of implants from right tibia and got discharged on 09.08.2008. During the course of 5th phase, she spent Rs.27,554/. (v) The claimant spent a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards attendant charges. (vi) The claimant was working as Head Teacher in M.P.P. Elementary School, Machugaripalli Village, Mydukur Mandal and drawing a salary of Rs.13,587/- per month. On account of fracture injury, the claimant could not attend to her duties from 14.08.2007 to till today. The employer of the claimant paid half salary for a period of six months. Thereafter no salary was paid to the claimant. The claimant thus sustained heavy monitory loss on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Had she not met with the accident, she would have got her salary and due to non-attending her duties, the promotion changes are also weakened. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to seek reimbursement of the entire salary even for said six months period, as she received half salary for six months due to surrender of medical leave. (vii) The claimant is entitled to Rs.2,44,566/- towards loss of earnings and is entitled for future loss of salary till she joins her employment. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to seek reimbursement of the entire salary even for said six months period, as she received half salary for six months due to surrender of medical leave. (vii) The claimant is entitled to Rs.2,44,566/- towards loss of earnings and is entitled for future loss of salary till she joins her employment. (viii) The husband of the claimant by name Pandeti Devaraj working as Head Master attended claimant during course of treatment at Hyderabad and during post operative treatment for which he was on leave from 21.08.2007 to 23.04.2008 to take care of her for which he suffered loss of salary for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to claim Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondents. (ix) The claimant is also entitled to claim compensation towards future medicines and treatment. She also took physiotherapy treatment by paying Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of nine months. Thus, she paid a sum of Rs.36,000/-. (x) The Police of Mydukur registered a case against driver of the offending vehicle in Cr.No.135 of 2007 under Sections 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and laid charge sheet against him after due investigation. The said offending vehicle originally belonged to first respondent, which was sold to second respondent and that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was under possession and control of second respondent. As policy stands in the name of first respondent, first respondent is also impleaded in the claim petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are, therefore, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The claimant sustained permanent disability. In spite of taking best treatment, she is still feeling problem to sit, squat and even to walk. (xi) In spite of best treatment, claimant could not recover and she is not leading normal life. Hence, the present claim petition. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The third respondent/Insurance company got filed a counter and the contention of the third respondent, in brief, is that i. the claimant has to prove the averments made in the petition strictly. She has to prove the nature of injuries, the manner of accident, the medical expenses, the loss of earnings and the permanent disability. 5. The third respondent/Insurance company got filed a counter and the contention of the third respondent, in brief, is that i. the claimant has to prove the averments made in the petition strictly. She has to prove the nature of injuries, the manner of accident, the medical expenses, the loss of earnings and the permanent disability. On 13.08.2007 at about 5-00 p.m., the driver of the offending vehicle was going on the extreme left side of the road by observing all traffic rules near R.C.M. school, Badvel road, Mydukur. The driver of the Bus bearing No.A.P.27-W-7418 i.e., offending vehicle was proceeding slowly by observing auto coming from opposite direction with high speed and in rash and negligent manner. The driver of the offending vehicle took his vehicle towards extreme left side of the road and slow down the speed of the vehicle. Though offending vehicle driver took precautions, took his vehicle towards extreme left side of the road, the driver of the auto lost his control over his vehicle and dashed against right side portion of the offending vehicle and caused accident. The accident thus took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the auto, who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules with high speed. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The third respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. ii. The driver of the auto did not possess valid and effective driving license as well as vehicle records. The owner and the driver of the auto and its Insurance Company are necessary parties to the present claim petition. iii. The driver of the offending vehicle also did not possess valid and effect driving license to drive the vehicle. The medical expenses incurred by the claimant towards her treatment were reimbursed by her employer. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not cooperate with third respondent by furnishing particulars of the driver as well as records pertaining to the vehicle. The third respondent is entitled to take protection under Sections 149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. The third respondent reserves its right to file additional counter as and when required. Hence, the claim petition is to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice. 6. The third respondent is entitled to take protection under Sections 149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. The third respondent reserves its right to file additional counter as and when required. Hence, the claim petition is to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trail: 1. Whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.27-W-7418? 2. Whether the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim? If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the claimant is entitled to and who are liable to pay the compensation? 3. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.16 and Ex.X.1 & Ex.X.2 were marked. The third respondent did not let in any oral evidence. 8. The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant, but with a finding that the claimant is entitled to compensation under different heads to a sum of Rs.4,58,905/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till 02.06.2010 and from 01.09.2014 to till date of the deposit along with proportionate costs. A direction was given to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of judgment. 9. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and sufficient, the claimant filed the present MACMA. 10. In spite of the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle in driving the same, there is no appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 or third respondent-insurance company. So, there are no cross objections to the present MACMA. The prayer of the appellant is to enhance the compensation as prayed. 11. So, there are no cross objections to the present MACMA. The prayer of the appellant is to enhance the compensation as prayed. 11. Now, in deciding this MACMA, the simple question that falls for consideration is that as to whether the award, dated 14.09.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2009, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, in awarding compensation of Rs.4,58,905/-, as against the original claim of Rs.15,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are no grounds to interfere with the same? POINT:- 12. Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the claimant by virtue of the evidence let in proved that she received serious fractures on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence made such findings and that the said findings are not challenged by the respondents by way of any cross objections. He would submit that the claimant was attending at Yasodha Hospital, Kalakpet right from the date of accident for almost one year and she attended the hospital for five times and underwent surgical procedure all through. She lost her routine life and also sustained disability of 50%. The Tribunal did not award proper compensation. As against the original claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.4,58,905/- was allowed. The husband of the claimant i.e., P.W.3 availed leave for months together to be in the company of the claimant to help her, as such, he lost his salary. For the comfort of the claimant, as she was not able to go hospital, a car was purchased. The Tribunal did not consider the medical expenditure under the physiotherapy, though physiotherapist was examined. The Tribunal did not allow the travel expenditure in spite of production of travel receipts. The Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of permanent disability, though the disability was proved. Though the claimant was working as a Teacher and was getting salary, but the physical disability which she sustained cannot be cured and she will have the disability throughout her life. The Tribunal did not award proper compensation under disability. The claimant lost her H.R.A. for continuous period on account of the injuries and it was not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not award proper compensation under disability. The claimant lost her H.R.A. for continuous period on account of the injuries and it was not considered by the Tribunal. With the above submissions, he would contend that the compensation claimed by the claimant is just and reasonable, as such, it is liable to be enhanced. 13. Ms. B. Alekhya, learned counsel, representing Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the contesting third respondent, would contend that the Tribunal on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record awarded just and reasonable compensation. The claimant did not prove that she lost her H.R.A. The claimant failed to prove that she purchased a car for her comfort. The evidence on record would disclose that even prior to the accident, they got a car. The leave applied by the husband of claimant cannot be connected with the accident in question. On thorough appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.4,58,905/- and it needs no interference. 14. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. However, the appellant shown them as parties. In the later stages of appeal, counsel for the appellant got not pressed the appeal against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that they remained exparte before the Tribunal and that it is third respondent which is insurance company which has to comply the award. 15. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, there are no cross objections or cross appeal. However, the testimony of P.W.1, who is no other than the injured, coupled with Ex.A.1-copy of FIR and Ex.A.3-copy of charge sheet, would prove that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending bus. It is a case the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent did not enter into witness box to depose contra to the evidence of P.W.1. It is a case the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent did not enter into witness box to depose contra to the evidence of P.W.1. Apart from this, the voluminous documentary evidence with regard to the injuries received by the claimant coupled with medical record i.e., Ex.A.2-wound certificate, Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8 i.e., five phases of treatment done to the claimant in Yasodha Hospital, Hyderabad goes to prove the fact that she received fractures and she was treated in the hospital for a considerable period of time. So, the claimant before the Tribunal was able to prove that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and that in that accident, she received severe injuries. 16. Turning to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded compensation under different heads. It is appropriate to mention here the different heads under which the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant. They are as follows: (1) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000-00 (2) Medical expenses (Rs.1,65,905/- + Rs.18,000/- = Rs.1,83,905/- : Rs.1,83,905-00 (3) Loss of earnings during period of treatment : Rs.-nil- (4) Compensation towards future medical expenses instead of any amount under head permanent disability. : Rs. 75,000-00 (5) Compensation for extra nourishment and transportation. Rs. 50,000-00 (6) Compensation for loss of amenities in the life. Rs. 50,000-00 Total Rs. 4,58,905-00 17. Before going to deal with as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the above heads needs any interference, this Court would like to deal with other contention of the claimant that the Tribunal did not award anything in her favour though she was not paid with any H.R.A. and that she incurred huge expenditure by purchasing a car to go to the hospital and by paying amount to the driver and that her husband lost his valuable leave to accompany with her. 18. It is to be noted that the contention of P.W.1 is that she lost her earnings on account of the accident and she could not attend her duties from 14.08.2007 till the date of claim petition and her employer paid half salary for six months and thereafter, she was not paid with any salary. She claimed that her salary was Rs.13,587/-per month. She claimed that her salary was Rs.13,587/-per month. However, it was brought in evidence that subsequent to the filing of the claim petition, the claimant made persuasions with the Government with regard to her difficulty and Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned special disability leave to her as accident was occurred while she was on duty. Even according to her, the loss of earnings was reimbursed. With regard to the contention that H.R.A. was not reimbursed, she was not able to produce any piece of paper during the course of enquiry to show that she was not paid with H.R.A., though her absence was regularized under special disability leave. It is a case where the claimant examined P.W.6, the Mandal Educational Officer, Mydukur to prove the fact that the claimant was reimbursed the medical expenses to certain extent. So, she had an occasion to elicit from him as to whether the claimant was paid with H.R.A. to the absent period. Except the oral say of P.W.1 that she was not paid with H.R.A., but nothing was produced by her to prove such an aspect. If withholding of H.R.A. to the claimant is true, it would have been born out by the record. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal negatived her contention. This Court does not find any ground to interference with the findings of the Tribunal. 19. Apart from this, it was born out from the evidence on record that the claimant family had a car even prior to the accident. As seen from Ex.A.13 entrties in the R.C. of the car, it was purchased in the year 2006 in the name of the husband of claimant i.e., P.W.3. Here the date of accident was on 13.08.2007. It was not a case where the claimant was compelled to purchase any car for her comfort, after the accident. The Tribunal rightly declined to award any compensation on the ground that the claimant invested amount towards purchase of car. Apart from this, there was no evidence whatsoever that the leave availed by P.W.3 was for the benefit of the claimant. The contention of the claimant to claim compensation on the ground that her husband availed leave to look after her, is nothing but remote consequences to the accident. Apart from this, the claimant failed to probabilize that only for her sake, her husband availed leave. The contention of the claimant to claim compensation on the ground that her husband availed leave to look after her, is nothing but remote consequences to the accident. Apart from this, the claimant failed to probabilize that only for her sake, her husband availed leave. So, the Tribunal rightly negatived the contention of the claimant to claim compensation in these heads. 20. Now, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal under different heads needs any interference. P.W.1 was no other than the claimant and she was no other than the injured. Though she got filed the chief examination affidavit of P.W.2, but later it was eschewed from consideration. She examined her husband as P.W.3. The claimant examined P.W.4-Dr. Y. Sampath Kumar to prove the fact that she had psychotherapy after accident for months together. The claimant examined P.W.5-Dr. A. Aravind Kumar, who gave treatment to her in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. The claimant examined P.W.6 to speak about the salary particulars of the claimant. She examined P.W.7-Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah about the permanent disability sustained by her. She examined P.W.8-B. Pratap Reddy about the service particulars of P.W.3. She also examined one L. Hemanth Kumar Muna as P.W.9 to establish a contention that she and her husband during the period of treatment at Hyderabad stayed in his house on rental. She examined P.W.10-V. Uma Maheswar Rao to speak about the bills that were issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. 21. Ex.A.2 was the copy of wound certificate exhibited by the claimant. She relied upon Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8, the treatment record maintained by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, with regard to the treatment provided to the claimant in five stages. She filed Ex.A.9 bunch of transport receipts. She exhibited Ex.A.10, the disability certificate. Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were the Treasury Bill Register and Photostat copy of service particulars of P.W.3. 22. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the compensation under the heads of pain, suffering and trauma in consequence of the injuries received by her. The evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination affidavit is nothing but adverting her case in tune with the pleadings. There is no dispute in the entire cross examination of P.W.1 about the injuries received by her. The evidence on record discloses that firstly the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa after the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination affidavit is nothing but adverting her case in tune with the pleadings. There is no dispute in the entire cross examination of P.W.1 about the injuries received by her. The evidence on record discloses that firstly the claimant was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa after the accident. Subsequently, the claimant was taken to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. 23. As seen from Ex.A.2, certified copy of wound certificate, the injuries sustained by the claimant are as follows: (1) Abrasion of 3x2 cm over oral/mucosa; (2) A swelling of 6x5 cm with deformity over left arm; (3) A swelling of 7x6 cm with lacerated would of 4x1x1 cm over right leg with bleeding; (4) X-ray of right leg shows fracture of tibia and fibula; and (5) X-ray of left shoulder fracture humorous. 24. Out of the aforesaid five injuries, injury Nos.2 and 3 are grievous in nature. Apart from this, corresponding to injury Nos.2 and 3, there are fractures i.e., fracture humorous of left shoulder and fracture of tibia and fibula. Coming to the period of treatment, Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8 reveals that the claimant was treated in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad from 15.08.2007 to 22.08.2007 firstly. Secondly, she was treated from 26.08.2007 to 31.08.2007. Thirdly, she was treated from 17.09.2007 to 19.09.2007. Fourthly, she was treated from 27.11.2007 to 12.12.2007. Lastly, she was also treated in the hospital from 06.08.2008 to 09.08.2008 for implants removal. 25. The nature of treatment that was given to the claimant was born out from these documents as well as oral testimony of P.W.5. According to P.W.5, the claimant was admitted under his care on 15.08.2007 following a road traffic accident in which she sustained fracture to right humorous M/3 and right acetabulum compound comminuted fracture of proximal end of right tibia P/3. Claimant underwent operation on 18.08.2007 when plating was done for right humorous and right tibia and then screw fixation was done for fracture acetabulum and claimant was discharged on 22.08.2007. She was again readmitted on 26.08.2007 with wound infection. She was treated medically for the infection and she was discharged on 31.08.2007. Ex.A.5 is the treatment record for the second phase. Claimant was admitted for the third time on 17.09.2007 with discharging would on the right leg. Wound debridement was done on the same day and claimant was discharged on 19.08.2007. Ex.A.6 is the third phase treatment of claimant. She was treated medically for the infection and she was discharged on 31.08.2007. Ex.A.5 is the treatment record for the second phase. Claimant was admitted for the third time on 17.09.2007 with discharging would on the right leg. Wound debridement was done on the same day and claimant was discharged on 19.08.2007. Ex.A.6 is the third phase treatment of claimant. Claimant was admitted again for 4th time on 27.11.2007 with non-union of fracture right humorous, infected non-union of right tibia condiles with austio anylites. The claimant underwent operation on 08.12.2007 and implant removal was done for the leg and bone grafting plus DCP was done for right humorous. She was discharged on 12.12.2007. Ex.A.7 is the treatment record issued by their hospital for 4th phase of treatment to claimant. Claimant again was admitted on 06.08.2008 and implants were removed on 07.08.2008 and was discharged on 09.08.2008. Ex.A.8 is the treatment record issued by their hospital for 5th phase of treatment to P.W.1. The injuries are grievous in nature. 26. In the entire cross examination of P.W.5, the period of treatment, the nature of injuries and the nature of treatment were not in dispute. It is a case that when she met with an accident on 13.09.2007, she was going around the hospitals till 09.08.2008. For almost 11 months she was moving around the hospitals. So, it is a case of two fractures which were treated with surgical intervention. The claimant was treated in the hospital as in-patient in five different phases. The pain and suffering physically and mentally in consequence of the injuries have to be considered by looking into the length of the treatment also. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering for two fractures which were treated surgically in different five phases is lesser on side. This Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- should be reasonable instead of Rs.1,00,000/- under this count. 27. Turning to the medical expenses claimed by the claimant, she produced the medical bills for a sum of Rs.3,44,062/-. Even in the chief examination affidavit, she admitted that she was reimbursed medical expenditure for a sum of Rs.1,78,157/- out of Rs.3,44,062/-. Her claim was that she is entitled to remaining balance of Rs.1,65,905/-. 27. Turning to the medical expenses claimed by the claimant, she produced the medical bills for a sum of Rs.3,44,062/-. Even in the chief examination affidavit, she admitted that she was reimbursed medical expenditure for a sum of Rs.1,78,157/- out of Rs.3,44,062/-. Her claim was that she is entitled to remaining balance of Rs.1,65,905/-. The medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.3,44,062/- was born out by Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8 which was testified by the claimant as well as P.W.5. The genuinty of Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8 before the Tribunal was not challenged by the contesting respondent. Even the evidence of P.W.6 discloses that they made reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,78,157/- leaving the balance of Rs.1,65,905/-. The Tribunal rightly considered the rest of the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,65,905/- under Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.8. 28. The claimant examined P.W.4, Physiotherapist in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. His evidence discloses that he provided physiotherapy postoperative treatment to her from May, 2008 to January, 2009 at her residence at Kadapa. He deposed that he charged Rs.4,000/- per month towards his fees. He testified that he gave Ex.A.16 receipt for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal allowed only a sum of Rs.18,000/- instead of Rs.36,000/-. It is to be noted that according to P.W.4 in cross examination, they are not maintaining any record regarding physiotherapy treatment. He issued Ex.A.16 in his private capacity. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the claimant must have taken physiotherapy for a correction of physical disability and incurred some expenditure towards payment of fee to the Physiotherapist. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that there is no reason to doubt the evidence of P.W.4. The Tribunal without there being any basis held that Ex.A.16 receipt is a higher side. So, without there being any proper reason, the Tribunal though believed the evidence of P.W.4 and the case of the claimant, but disallowed physiotherapy charges to a sum of Rs.18,000/- when she claimed for Rs.36,000/-. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.36,000/- under the head of physiotherapy treatment instead of Rs.18,000/-. 29. There is no dispute that the claimant though initially sustained some loss of earnings, but later on account of the act of the Government in treating her absence period as special disability leave, she was reimbursed with the loss of earnings. 29. There is no dispute that the claimant though initially sustained some loss of earnings, but later on account of the act of the Government in treating her absence period as special disability leave, she was reimbursed with the loss of earnings. The Tribunal rightly held that she did not loss her earnings. As already pointed out, the claimant failed to probabilize her contention with regard to the alleged non-payment of H.R.A. 30. Coming to the disability sustained by the claimant, she testified about the disability in her chief examination. According to P.W.5, the claimant has permanent restriction of movements on her knee joint as a result of injuries and has 50% of permanent physical disability. She cannot squat or sit cross-legged and she cannot use Indian Toilet, she has permanent limping and also she has chronic permanent deformity in her leg movement. Apart from this, the claimant examined P.W.7, who examined the claimant on 04.07.2014 as member of District Medical Board, Kadapa and issued Ex.A.10. The evidence of P.W.7 is with the following findings: (1) Mal-united tibial platean fracture with fracture head of the fibula with an evidence of removal of implants, with healed osteomilaties with incongruity of right knee. (2) Healed fracture of right acetabulum with implants insitue with an evidence of secondary osteoorthraities of right hip. (3) Mal-united fracture of right humorous with an evidence of second surgery and bone grafting. (4) Osteoporosis of the surrounding bones of right hip, knee and shoulder. (5) Painful and restricted movements of right hip and knee. (6) Painful and restricted movements of right shoulder due to post traumatic pediorthraities. (7) Unable to stand on the affected limb. (8) Unable to squat and cross legged. (9) Difficulty in climbing the staircase. (10) Difficulty in lifting the objects in right upper limb. 31. The Tribunal made finding of facts that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.7 coupled with Ex.A.10 indicate that claimant has physical disability. But the Tribunal was of the view that as the claimant is attending her duties, there is no loss of her salary or reduction of salary. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the claimant has no functional disability that hampered her earning capacity. But the Tribunal was of the view that as the claimant is attending her duties, there is no loss of her salary or reduction of salary. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the claimant has no functional disability that hampered her earning capacity. The Tribunal was not inclined to award any compensation under the head of permanent disability, but keeping in view the future medical requirement of the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under future medical expenditure. The grievance of the claimant is that she is entitled for compensation under the permanent disability. 32. It is to be noted that the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal is that the claimant has disability. The disability is quietly evident from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7. Though the physical disability is not coming in the way of the claimant to discharge the duties as a Teacher, as such, there were no loss of earnings, but the fact remained is that the disability received by the claimant is permanent. She will have to bear it throughout her life. There are restricted movements of her knee joint as such she cannot squat or sit cross-legged and she cannot use Indian Toilet. She has permanent limping and also she has chronic permanent deformity in her leg movement. These findings are supported with the evidence of P.W.7. Because she has been in service, she is being paid with salary, as the so-called disability is not coming in the way to discharge her duties, as a Teacher, but definitely, insofar as personal life is concerned, the disability will have its own impact. Though the disability is such that it is not affecting the earning capacity of the claimant, as a Teacher, but the Tribunal ought to have considered atleast for lump sum amount for the permanent disability because the claimant has to bear with throughout her life. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards permanent disability is just and reasonable. By awarding this sum under the count of permanent disability, this Court is not disturbing the findings of the Tribunal that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability. 33. By awarding this sum under the count of permanent disability, this Court is not disturbing the findings of the Tribunal that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability. 33. Coming to the transport charges claimed by the claimant during the period of treatment, she testified that she was taken to Hyderabad from Kadapa in an Ambulance during the period of treatment at Hyderabad and later she came to Kadapa three or four times for a short period for which she also engaged Ambulance and to prove the same, she filed Ex.A.9 transport bills. She produced the transport bills for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal on the ground that no person was examined to prove Ex.A.9, allowed transport expenditure on guess work to a tune of Rs.30,000/-. It is to be noted that when the claimant produced Ex.A.9 transport bills for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the factum of her going to Hyderabad and coming back to Kadapa, vice versa for five or six times was not in dispute, the Tribunal ought to have considered the transport expenses as claimed by the claimant. It is not the case of the contesting respondent No.3 that the claimant did not incur any transport expenditure in this regard. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant is eligible to claim a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards transport charges. The Tribunal considered a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in the life. This Court does not find any ground to enhance the compensation under this head. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards extra-nourishment which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances. The claimant by examining herself and by further examining P.W.9, claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards rents for a period of six months and according to P.W.9, P.W.1 and her husband took the house on rent at Rs.7,000/- per month and stayed for six months and he received rent of Rs.42,000/-. The Tribunal negatived the claim of the claimant in this regard by disbelieving the evidence of P.W.9. 34. It is to be noted that even according to the voluminous medical evidence, the claimant took treatment in five different spells and claimed transport expenses under different periods. The Tribunal negatived the claim of the claimant in this regard by disbelieving the evidence of P.W.9. 34. It is to be noted that even according to the voluminous medical evidence, the claimant took treatment in five different spells and claimed transport expenses under different periods. It is very difficult to believe that throughout the period of six months, the claimant was staying in the house of P.W.9 at Hyderabad along with her husband. The Tribunal rightly negatived the contention of the claimant in this regard. 35. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and in view of the findings arrived at by this Court interfering with the heads of compensation under some heads, now the compensation under different heads are as follows: 1 Compensation for pain and suffering: (enhanced amount is Rs.50,000/-). Rs.1,50,000/- 2 Compensation under the medical expenses: Rs.1,65,905/-. 3 Compensation for Physiotherapy: (Enhanced amount is Rs.18,000/-). Rs. 36,000/- 4 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment: Nil. 5 Compensation towards permanent disability: granted by this Court). Rs.75,000/- 6 Compensation for transport charges: (enhanced amount is Rs.20,000/-). Rs.50,000/- 7 Compensation for loss of amenities in the life: Rs.50,000/-. 8 Compensation for future medical expenses: Rs.75,000/-. 9 Extra nourishment: Rs.20,000/-. 36. Hence, the award of the Tribunal needs interference by enhancing the compensation to an amount of Rs.1,63,000/-. 37. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part with proportionate costs enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,58,905/- to Rs.6,21,905/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from the date of petition till 02.06.2010 and from 01.09.2014 till the date of deposit and directing the third respondent to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,63,000/- with up to date interest and proportionate costs within one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in lump sum. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. According to P.W.5, he did surgical procedure on P.W.1 on 18.08.2007 and the plating was done for right humorous and right tibia and then screw fixation was done for fracture acetabulum and she was discharged on 22.08.2007. Later, she was admitted into the hospital with a complaint of wound infection and she was discharged on 31.08.2007. Thirdly, she was admitted on 17.09.2007 with discharging wound on the right leg. Later, she was admitted into the hospital with a complaint of wound infection and she was discharged on 31.08.2007. Thirdly, she was admitted on 17.09.2007 with discharging wound on the right leg. Another surgical procedure of wound debridement was done on the same day and she was discharged on 19.08.2007. Again she was admitted in the hospital on 27.11.2007 because of non-union of fracture of right humorous and infected non-union of right tibia condiles with austio anylites and she underwent surgery on 08.12.2007 and implant removal was done for the leg and bone grafting plus DCP was done for right humorous. She was discharged on 12.12.2007. Again she was admitted in the hospital on 06.08.2008 and implants were removed on 07.08.2008 and she was discharged on 09.08.2008.