JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao) This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.08.2013 passed in O.P.No.310 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (i) On 26.01.2009 at about 01.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing No.AP-01P-6908 along with his friend one Mr.K.John and when they reached Chopparipalli village, the 1st respondent came in the opposite direction on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-28P-6603 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner’s Motor Cycle and as a result of which, the petitioner and his friend fell from the motor cycle. They sustained bleeding injuries to their legs, head, stomach and other parts of the body. The Police Kazipet registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The pillion rider K.John died while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Mancherial. The petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment. He underwent amputation for below knee right lower limb, vascular of left lower limb, fasciotomy and external fixation of left lower limb with AAP under GA, comminuted fracture right tibia, stabilized with an external fizator, and fasciotomy of the left leg was carried out. Further, the petitioner underwent debridement and SSG left leg on 30.01.2009 and regular dressing continued. Re-debridement and SSC left leg was done under SA on 27.02.2009. Later, the petitioner underwent physiotherapy. (ii) The petitioner is an agriculturist having Ac.2-05 cents in his name, an extent of Ac.12-15 cents in the name of his father, Ac.2-03 cents in the name of his mother-in-law and he has taken 10 acres on lease from Gruhalakshmi and Satyashri in the year 2006. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his right leg and is suffering with severe injuries and wounds, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his right leg and is suffering with severe injuries and wounds, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01P-6908. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 6. To prove the petitioner’s case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A25 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.31,82,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that there is no involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-P-6603. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, who drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-P-6908 in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal erred in awarding the amount of compensation of Rs.31,82,000/- when the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal ought to have restricted the income of the petitioner to the amount of Rs.40,000/- per annum as prescribed under Section 163-A of the MV Act and Schedule of the Act. The Tribunal erred in awarding various amounts without any basis when the claim was filed under Section 163-A of the Act and ought to have restricted the award to the extent as contemplated under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the vehicle’s driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal erred in considering the petitioner’s income at Rs.1,10,000/- per annum without any basis. The Tribunal erred in awarding the medical bills at Rs.6,00,000/- without any evidence of proof. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the vehicle’s driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal erred in considering the petitioner’s income at Rs.1,10,000/- per annum without any basis. The Tribunal erred in awarding the medical bills at Rs.6,00,000/- without any evidence of proof. The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of previous, present and future attendant charges and Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of past, present and future physiotherapy treatment. The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of earnings during the treatment period. The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical and mental pain, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life, Rs.12,32,000/- towards loss of future earnings. The Tribunal also erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.31,82,000/- when the claim itself was made for Rs.30,00,000/-. The awarded amount is excessive and may be reduced. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal, after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and based on the evidence, has rightly awarded compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. 10. Heard Sri M.Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/respondent and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 to permit the petitioner to amend the provision of law from Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) to Section 166 of the Act in the claim petition filed by him in O.P.No.310 of 2010. The said application was allowed on 11.06.2024. 12. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A-1-FIR and Ex.A-3-charge-sheet, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and has answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 13. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner stated that he is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-05 gts., his father is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.12-15 gts., his mother-in-law is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-03 gts., and he has taken 10 acres on lease from one Gruhalakshmi and one Satyashri in 2006 and is producing paddy/wheat/ vegetables/cotton and other seasonal crops in the said extent of Ac.26-23 guntas and was earning a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner also stated that he used to pay the landlord Rs.1,50,000/- in all towards the lease. His father and mother-in-law, who are old aged, cannot able to cultivate the land standing in their names. As such, the petitioner was cultivating the said land. Due to the accident, the petitioner cannot move from the bed, cannot do any work and he is deprived of his livelihood. The petitioner is married and having three children and old aged father. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his right leg and is suffering with severe injuries and wounds, as a result of which the petitioner suffered permanent disability. 14. To prove the petitioner’s case, he got examined the Doctor through Commissioner Dr.Jayaramchander, Senior Ortho Surgeon in Apollo Hospital, PW.2, who deposed that he examined the injured. The injuries are (1) Type 3(c) Open crush injury right leg (2) Type (III) (c) Open comminuted fracture left tibia and fibula 1/3rd with compartment syndrome. He was operated on with below-knee amputation in the right lower limb, and the left tibia was stabilized with an external fixator and fasciotomy of the left leg on 27.01.2009. On 30.01.2009, he had debridement and skin grafting left leg. On 27.02.2009, he again underwent debridement and skin grafting. He was discharged on 09.03.2009. The injuries sustained are grievous in nature. As a result of the injuries sustained, he has disability of 70%. Ex.A16 is the disability certificate issued by RIMS. Ex.A4 is the original bill of Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for Rs.3,24,876/-. Ex.A17 is the discharge summary, Ex.A18 is the X-Ray film, Exs.A-19 and A-20 are outpatient receipts issued by Apollo Hospital. The injuries sustained are grievous in nature. As a result of the injuries sustained, he has disability of 70%. Ex.A16 is the disability certificate issued by RIMS. Ex.A4 is the original bill of Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for Rs.3,24,876/-. Ex.A17 is the discharge summary, Ex.A18 is the X-Ray film, Exs.A-19 and A-20 are outpatient receipts issued by Apollo Hospital. As per discharge summary-Ex.A14 of MGIMS, it is seen that he was readmitted on 24.03.2010 with an infection of the left leg and got re-operated for bone grafting and plate fixation for the non union of fracture tibia, which occurred subsequent to the injury that he sustained. The petitioner requires treatment for his remaining life. 15. The petitioner also got examined PW.3 L.Somaiah, the petitioner’s father. PW.3 deposed that four years ago, his son (the petitioner) met with an accident. His son's right leg was amputated, and he became permanently disabled and he is in possession of lands to the extent of Ac.5-10 cents in Sy.No.56/A, Ac.1-95 cents in Sy.No.393/A, an extent of 115 cents and they also possess lands in various survey numbers. The passbook of PW.3 was marked as Ex.A8. They possess lands in his wife's and petitioner’s names, and they have about 14 acres in Vempalli village. PW.3 became an old aged person and is suffering from many age-related problems. The petitioner, being his son, was looking after the agricultural works in their lands and he further leased lands from one Gruhalaxmi and Satyasree by way of a lease agreement in 2006. The entire responsibility of their family was taken care of by their son, and he used to produce paddy, wheat and other seasonal crops, earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. His son was also paying Rs.1,50,000/- to the said Gruhalaxmi and Satyasree towards their lease of the agricultural lands. 16. The entire responsibility of their family was taken care of by their son, and he used to produce paddy, wheat and other seasonal crops, earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. His son was also paying Rs.1,50,000/- to the said Gruhalaxmi and Satyasree towards their lease of the agricultural lands. 16. Before the Tribunal, to prove the petitioner’s case, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kavita vs. Deepak and Others, 2012 (6) ALD 131 was relied upon, wherein it was held as follows: “Permanent disability-Compensation quantum of determination- Adequate compensation must be awarded not only for physical injury and treatment, but also for loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities- Amount awarded under head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or amount awarded for medical expenses.” 17. Another judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Pamarthi Subba Rao vs. H. Rama Rao and another, 2009 ACJ 652 , was also relied upon, wherein it was held as follows:- “Disability was assessed at 50 percent but the workman can no longer drive the vehicle-Whether inspite of there being no sufferance of injuries mentioned in part 1 of Schedule 1 or combination of injuries mentioned in Part II of Schedule I, if there is 100 percent disability to do the work the workman was doing earlier it has to be treated that workman has suffered 100 percent disability.” 18. In the instant case, the petitioner stated that he filed bills for more than Rs.6,00,000/- under Exs.A-4, A-13, A-19, A-20, A-21 and A-24. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses, and the same warrants no interference. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical and mental pains, and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and expectation of life, which also needs no interference by this Court. 19. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A-5 to A-12, which show the extent of agricultural lands in possession of the petitioner and his family members, fixed the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.1,10,000/-. However, this Court is of the considered view that the said exhibits only point out the possession and the extent of the agricultural lands. 19. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A-5 to A-12, which show the extent of agricultural lands in possession of the petitioner and his family members, fixed the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.1,10,000/-. However, this Court is of the considered view that the said exhibits only point out the possession and the extent of the agricultural lands. The adangal patrik, title or the pattadar pass book could not be considered the basis for determining the actual agricultural income earned by the petitioner. The same do not suggest that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,10,000/- per annum through agricultural activity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SYED SADIQ AND OTHERS Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 735, held that a vegetable vendor is capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month. In the present case, in the absence of any specific evidence suggesting that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,10,000/- per annum as agricultural income, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/- in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SYED SADIQ (supra). Accordingly, the annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.78,000/-. However, the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects to the income of the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and as such, 40% of future prospects on the income is added, since the petitioner was aged 34 years at the time of the accident. The annual income of the petitioner accordingly comes to Rs.1,09,200/- [Rs.78,000/- + Rs.31,200/-]. 20. The Tribunal rightly took the multiplier applicable for the petitioner’s age as ‘16’, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 . Further, the Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.A-16 Disability Certificate, rightly fixed the disability of the petitioner at 70%. Hence, under the head of disability, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,23,040/- [Rs.1,09,200/- x 16 x 70%]. 21. Further, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for previous, present and future attendant charges. The attendant was examined as PW.4, who deposed that he used to carry and assist PW.1/the petitioner, while shifting to the Hospital and other necessities of PW.1. 21. Further, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for previous, present and future attendant charges. The attendant was examined as PW.4, who deposed that he used to carry and assist PW.1/the petitioner, while shifting to the Hospital and other necessities of PW.1. However, without any supporting evidence, the Tribunal erroneously granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Though an amputation of the petitioner’s right lower limb below knee had taken place, it is not clear as to how many days the attendant assisted the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reduce the amount awarded under the head of attendant charges from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. Insofar as physiotherapy treatment is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for the past, future and present physiotherapy treatment. PW.2-Doctor deposed that the petitioner requires physiotherapy treatment for the rest of his life. However, the petitioner has not produced any document or bills pertaining to the physiotherapy treatment undertaken, or any supporting evidence or estimate of future physiotherapy costs. The Tribunal awarded an excessive amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under this head, and this Court is inclined to reduce the same to Rs.3,00,000/-. 22. The Tribunal granted an arbitrary amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of loss of earnings without any reasoning or rationale. The time period considered for computing such loss of earnings has also not been specified by the Tribunal. This Court, considering the petitioner’s treatment, deems it appropriate to consider six months as the treatment period for the computation of loss of earnings. Hence, the compensation under this head would arrive at Rs.39,000/- [Rs.6,500/- x 6]. 23. Therefore, the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.310 of 2010 is modified as follows:- S.No. Particulars Amount 1. Medical Expenses Rs.6,00,000/- 2. Disability [Rs.1,09,200/- x 16 x 70%] Rs.12,23,040/- 3. Attendant Charges Rs.3,00,000/- 4. Physiotherapy treatment Rs.3,00,000/- 5. Loss of earnings [Rs.6,500/- x 6] Rs.39,000/- 6. Physical and mental pains Rs.2,00,000/- 7. Loss of amenities and expectation of life Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.28,62,040/- 24. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.31,82,000/- to Rs.28,62,040/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand and Forty Only) with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.31,82,000/- to Rs.28,62,040/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Two Thousand and Forty Only) with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.