JUDGMENT : A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 06.03.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1308 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the petitioner for Rs.14,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 21.11.2013 at 1-00 p.m., awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to deposit the same within a period of one month. The appellant herein is no other than the second respondent/insurance company. 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 brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that he was aged about 55 years, as on the date of accident. He was attending the work of supply of labour as Mastry. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month prior to November, 2013. On 21.11.2013 at 1-00 p.m., when the petitioner sat as a pillion rider on the Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.A.P.31-J-3746 driven by Shri Reddy and when it reached road margin at Gundivillipeta Village, one Bolero Van bearing No.A.P.31-TC-0058 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) came from Srikakulam to Narasannapeta and dashed the motorcycle of Shri Reddy. The vehicle came in rash and negligent manner. On account of the accident, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries to his right leg and fracture of ankle of left leg and injury to his left hand finger. He was taken to Vatsalya Hospital. Later, he was shifted to Sindhura Hospital, Srikakulam. He underwent surgery for correction of bone fracture. He was treated as In-patient from 23.11.2013 to 02.12.2013. He got treatment under Rajiv Arogyasri Scheme. He became permanently disabled. He claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of earnings; Rs.4,00,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of facilities to life and Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses. 4. The third respondent remained exparte. 5. He underwent surgery for correction of bone fracture. He was treated as In-patient from 23.11.2013 to 02.12.2013. He got treatment under Rajiv Arogyasri Scheme. He became permanently disabled. He claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of earnings; Rs.4,00,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of facilities to life and Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses. 4. The third respondent remained exparte. 5. The first respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioner has to prove about his employment and income and rash and negligent driving said to be made by the driver of the offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. The third respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the driver of the Van was not having qualified driving license. The petitioner has to prove that Van has valid documents such as permit and registration certificate. The accident was occurred due to negligence of the rider of Pulsar Motorcycle. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail: (1) Whether the accident, dated 21.11.2013 is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle bearing No.A.P.31-TC-0058? (2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.31-J-3746? (4) Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? (5) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? (6) To what relief? 8. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 and Ex.X.1 were marked. Respondents did not let in any evidence. 9. The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards compensation as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the second respondent filed the present MACMA. 10. Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 06.03.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1308 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT:- 11. 10. Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 06.03.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1308 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT:- 11. Sri Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Kamarajugadda, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that though there was no pleading about the permanent disability, the Tribunal on its own without any basis fixed the disability as 25% and awarded excessive compensation. There was no basis for the Tribunal to award such excessive compensation, as such, compensation needs to be reduced. 12. Sri V.Ch. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner, would contend that the evidence on record would prove the disability and further the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal rightly looked into the evidence and ascertained the just compensation, as such, MACMA is liable to be dismissed. 13. No arguments are advanced on behalf of the other contesting respondents. 14. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, those are not sought to be challenged in the grounds of appeal. However, P.W.1 no other than the injured got filed his chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings and through his examination Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 were marked. Ex.A.1 was copy of FIR in Crime No.227 of 2013 of Narasannapet Police Station. Ex.A.2 was copy of medico legal certificate issued by Vatsalya Hospital. Ex.A.3 was copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.4 was copy of cover note of vehicle insurance. Ex.A.5 was copy of driving license of third respondent. Ex.A.6 was copy of trade certificate issued by R.T.A. for the vehicle A.P.31-TC- 0058/2012. Ex.A.7 was copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.8 was discharge slip issued by Sindhura Hospital. During cross examination on behalf of the contesting respondent, nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 to disbelieve his testimony. Police registered FIR in Crime No.227 of 2013 of Narasannapeta Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet under Ex.A.3. 15. Ex.A.8 was discharge slip issued by Sindhura Hospital. During cross examination on behalf of the contesting respondent, nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 to disbelieve his testimony. Police registered FIR in Crime No.227 of 2013 of Narasannapeta Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet under Ex.A.3. 15. Ex.A.2 copy of medico legal certificate, Ex.A.7 copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.8 discharge slip issued by Sindhura Hospital and Ex.X.1 case sheet, would disclose that the petitioner received fracture and he was operated surgically. There was no evidence let in by the owner of the offending vehicle. Even insurance company did not step into the witness box. The evidence of P.W.1, who was injured, had corroboration from Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3, Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8 and Ex.X.1. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle on which the petitioner was a pillion rider. Further the insurance company miserably failed to prove that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving license. 16. There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, as such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation according to the evidence of P.W.2, Ravi Kumar, Resident Doctor of Sindhura Hospital, Srikakulam, the petitioner was treated as In-patient in their hospital for ten days and underwent surgery for both bones of his right ankle in their hospital and Ex.X.1 is the medical case sheet. So, the petitioner had fracture of both bones of his right ankle which were surgically intervened. Apart from that he had some simple injuries also. Absolutely, it is not a case of disability. Neither the evidence of P.W.1 nor the medical evidence in the form of wound certificate marked under Ex.A.7, Ex.A.2 copy of medico legal certificate issued by Vatsalya Hospital, Ex.A.8 discharge slip issued by Sindhura Hospital and Ex.X.1 case sheet discloses that the petitioner had any disability. The evidence of P.W.2 means that Ex.X.1 was the case sheet. Neither the evidence of P.W.1 nor the medical evidence in the form of wound certificate marked under Ex.A.7, Ex.A.2 copy of medico legal certificate issued by Vatsalya Hospital, Ex.A.8 discharge slip issued by Sindhura Hospital and Ex.X.1 case sheet discloses that the petitioner had any disability. The evidence of P.W.2 means that Ex.X.1 was the case sheet. Virtually, when there was no pleading and proof as regards the disability and there was no amputation or shortening of leg and even there was no deformity in the ankle on account of the surgical procedure, the Tribunal without any basis whatsoever on its own basing on imaginations, assumptions and presumptions held that “if such fracture of the petitioner causes 25% of permanent disability, he can claim 25% of his future earnings i.e., 25% of Rs.10,80,000/- = Rs.2,70,000/-“. According to the Tribunal, the monthly income of the petitioner was taken as Rs.10,000/-, as such, annual income of the petitioner is Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal by applying the multiplier ‘9’ x Rs.1,20,000/- arrived at the so-called earnings of Rs.10,80,000/- and considered the disability of 25% as Rs.2,70,000/-. The whole exercise made by the Tribunal is without any basis from the record. The manner in which the Tribunal opined that if there is a disability, the petitioner is eligible to claim Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of earnings is nothing but baseless. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of facilities to life on account of the so-called permanent disability and medical expenses of Rs.20,000/- which are nothing but imaginary figures. The petitioner was treated under Rajiv Arogyasri scheme. He did not produce medical bills whatsoever. The findings of the Tribunal that though the petitioner has got treatment under Rajiv Arogyasri scheme, but he would have spent not less than Rs.20,000/- is nothing but irregular. A look at the judgment of the Tribunal reveals that the tribunal without any basis whatsoever awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards compensation which is liable to be interfered with. 18. Under the circumstances, this Court examined the quantum of compensation which can be fixed reasonably. As the petitioner sustained two fractures which were intervened with a surgical procedure, the reasonable sum in the considered view of this Court is Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- for two fractures. Towards multiple simple injuries, he can be awarded with a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 18. Under the circumstances, this Court examined the quantum of compensation which can be fixed reasonably. As the petitioner sustained two fractures which were intervened with a surgical procedure, the reasonable sum in the considered view of this Court is Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- for two fractures. Towards multiple simple injuries, he can be awarded with a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Towards extra-nourishment it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Towards transportation charges, he can be awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. As the petitioner had no disability, there is no question of awarding any amount towards loss of facilities. The injuries received by the petitioner are such the petitioner might have taken bed rest for a period of couple of months. Hence, at Rs.10,000/- per month can be considered during the period of treatment which comes to Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings for two months. 19. Having regard to the above, the compensation which can be awarded to the petitioner as follows: Compensation towards pain and suffering and inconvenience for two fractures and simple injuries is Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.20,000/-. Rs.1,00,000-00 Towards extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000-00 Towards loss of earnings Rs. 20,000-00 Towards transport charges Rs. 10,000-00 Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-. 20. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the MACMA is liable to be allowed in part. 21. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part reducing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from that of Rs.3,70,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.