JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 05.10.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 129 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 13.01.2005 at 12.00 noon, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. 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. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) On 13.01.2005, the petitioner had pain the ear and went to Sri Sitarama Nursing Home at Muramalla for treatment on her brother Koppada Pedda Shirvadam’s Hero Magestic. After completion of the treatment they were returning to their village, at about 12.00 noon. When they reached Bangaram Peta, Muramalla, respondent No. 1, who is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, came in opposite direction and dashed the Hero Magestic moped in high speed, as a result, the moped fell down on the ground. The right front wheel of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus ran over the left hand wrist of the petitioner, as a result, her wrist was removed. She also received injuries on head, left thigh and on right side stomach. (ii) On receipt of hospital intimation, the I. Polavaram Police, registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2005, under Section 338 IPC. (iii) The petitioner was treated as inpatient in the hospital for three (03) months. Operation was conducted over the fore-arm and the wrist was removed. A private treatment was also taken for speedy recovery of the injury. Petitioner/claimant spent huge amount for her treatment. Due to the head injury and the injury on stomach, her health condition was completely destroyed. She was completely bed ridden for one year. Now she is unable to walk without the assistance of others, as she is getting shivering. Due to the accident petitioner sustained serious loss and suffered so much mental agony. She became dependant on others. (iv) Petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. She was a fish vendor, belongs to a fisherman community. Now she is unable to walk without the assistance of others, as she is getting shivering. Due to the accident petitioner sustained serious loss and suffered so much mental agony. She became dependant on others. (iv) Petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. She was a fish vendor, belongs to a fisherman community. She was aged 35 years and used to earn Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day by selling the fish in Yanam Market Yard and she is the bread winner and earning person in her family. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are employers of respondent No. 1, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4......... (i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex-parte. (ii) Respondent No. 2/A.P.S.R.T.C. got filed a counter, contending in substance that the offending vehicle belongs to respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 was the driver on the date of the accident. The bus was coming from Yanam to Kakinada. It reached Bangarammapeta Village. A person with a pillion rider on Hero Majestic motorcycle came suddenly in the middle of the road, as such, bus driver applied break and blow the horn. The fault is on the part of the petitioner, as such, the claim is to be dismissed. Petitioner has to prove the injuries sustained and medical expenditure. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 9313 by respondent No. 1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount, and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. The contesting respondents did not let in any evidence. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, gave finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the made by the driver of the offending vehicle and arrived at the figure of Rs.2,97,244.33 ps. The contesting respondents did not let in any evidence. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, gave finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the made by the driver of the offending vehicle and arrived at the figure of Rs.2,97,244.33 ps. and rounded of the same to Rs.3,00,000/- and directed the respondents to pay compensation jointly and severally with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid compensation, the unsuccessful respondent Nos.2 and 3, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point for determination is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 05.10.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 129 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?” POINT: 10. Sri Vinod Kumar Taralada, learned standing counsel for the appellants/A.P.S.R.T.C. would contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation. The Tribunal awarded medical expenditure and loss of estate excessively. The Tribunal awarded amount of Rs.2,30,000/- without there being disability under the head of permanent disability. Hence, the award needs to interfered, so as to reduce the compensation. 11. Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, would canvass a contention that the plight of the petitioner is evident from the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. There was amputation of wrist of the petitioner and she was not in a position to catch fishing, which was her occupation. The evidence on record proves the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver and the Tribunal rightly considered various heads of compensation, as such, the award needs no interference. 12. As seen from the testimony of PW-1, who was injured, in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 4 of 2005, dated14.01.2005. Ex.A2 was the attested copy of charge sheet. 12. As seen from the testimony of PW-1, who was injured, in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 4 of 2005, dated14.01.2005. Ex.A2 was the attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A4 was the attested copy of M.V.I. report. Ex.A5 was the bunch of medical bills, worth Rs.30,844.33 police station. Ex.X1 was the accident register (original with No. 1187). Ex.X2 was the case sheet. 13. The petitioner, further examined PW-2, who as a witness to the occurrence, he testified that, on that day, he was driving the motorbike, on which the petitioner/injured was riding as a pillion rider and the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is to be noted that PWs.1 and 2 denied the contention of the A.P.S.R.T.C. During the cross-examination, there is no dispute what so ever that an F.I.R. in Crime No. 4 of 2005 was registered against the respondent No. 1 and the police filed a charge sheet alleging that he caused the accident by virtue of his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 14. For obvious reasons, respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take any steps to examine respondent No. 1. So, the testimony of PW-1 has support from the evidence of PW-2, coupled with the outcome of the investigation. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending vehicle. 15. Now turning to the heads of compensation, PW-1, put for the facts in tune with the pleadings. She examined the medical officer by name Dr. Amit Das, Specialist Grade-1, Government Hospital, Yanam as PW-3. According to him, on 13.01.2005, he examined the injured/claimant and found the following injuries (1) Right occipital Hematoma (2) Left hand degloving and crush injury extending into the fore arm and (3) Suspected of Chest injury. The injury is grievous in nature and he issued Ex.A3-the wound certificate. He testified that the patient was referred to Neuro surgical and Orthopedic ward, G.G.H. Kakinada. Ex.X1 is the accident register (original with No. 1187). The injury is grievous in nature and he issued Ex.A3-the wound certificate. He testified that the patient was referred to Neuro surgical and Orthopedic ward, G.G.H. Kakinada. Ex.X1 is the accident register (original with No. 1187). So, according to him, after first aid, he referred the injured to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. The contesting respondents did not challenge the testimony of PW-3. 16. Turning to the evidence of PW-4, medical officer who attended surgery on the PW-1, he deposed that is Associate Professor of Orthopedic Department, Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada. Previously, he worked as Orthopedic Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On 13.01.2005, PW-1 was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada with the following injuries. (1) Large right occipital hematoma present. (2) Left hand deformity crush injury extending to fore-arm. (3) Fracture upper 1/3rd left forearm below elbow. The wounds are grievous in nature. He attended Surgery. He attended Debridement and disarticulation wrist done on 13.01.2005. Further Skin grafting was done on 28.02.2005. He further attended Skin grafting on 16.03.2005. He made open reduction and square nailing first ulna and plating for radius was done on 26.03.2005. Patient was discharged from the hospital on 08.04.2005. He further found the patient in the open Court and observed that there is disarticulated left wrist with skin grafted raw area over the distal forearm stump. There is limitation of supination and pronation movements of left forearm. He issued Ex.X2-case sheet. 17. So, by virtue of evidence of PWs.3 and 4, coupled with Ex.A3, Exs.X1 and X2, the nature of the injuries is very clear. She sustained grievous injuries. So, it is a case where there was left hand degloving and crush injury extending into the forearm. So, there was disability of her left hand, because it was amputated up to writ level. Though the claimant did not produce any disability certificate, but the evidence of PW-4, is sufficient to ascertain the nature of the disability. According to the evidence of PW-4, there is every difficulty for the petitioner to attend fishing business in her single hand. So, the Tribunal considered the disability according to the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4. The Tribunal looked into the multiplier under Section 163-A of the schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act and for the age group of 35 years, and applied multiplier of 16. So, the Tribunal considered the disability according to the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4. The Tribunal looked into the multiplier under Section 163-A of the schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act and for the age group of 35 years, and applied multiplier of 16. The Tribunal considered the income of the as that of Rs.3,000/- per month and arrived at loss of future earnings as that of Rs.2000/- X 12 X 16 X 60% i.e., Rs.2,30,400/-. In fact the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income towards personal and living expenses, which is not supposed to be done in injuries case. However, there is no appeal filed by the claimant against the award of the Tribunal. So, overall amount of Rs.2,30,400/- towards loss of earnings is quietly just and reasonable. Apart from this, the Tribunal considered to allow the loss of earnings for a period of one year, considering the plight of the injury. It is case, where the petitioner was in the hospital for more than three (03) months, on account of the complicated surgical procedure, which crush injuries which resulted amputation up to wrist level. She was supposed to have the bed rest for a period of one year and the Tribunal rightly considered the loss of earnings for a period of one year as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal considered the medical expenditure under Ex.A5 to a tune of Rs.30,844/-. So, the overall compensation arrived at is Rs.2,97,244/-. The Tribunal rounded of it to Rs.3,00,000/-. It is to be noted that the difference amount is around Rs.2,000/- and the Tribunal is not justified in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.2,000/-. 18. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation Rs.2,97,244.33 ps. arrived at by the Tribunal is reasonable, as such, the award, dated 05.10.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 129 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada is proper. However, the compensation is confined to the extent to the Tribunal ascertained without making any round off. 19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs, reducing the compensation from that of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,97,244/- ps. with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the compensation is confined to the extent to the Tribunal ascertained without making any round off. 19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs, reducing the compensation from that of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,97,244/- ps. with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Appellants shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw entire amount. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.