JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. 1. The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014, dated 29.06.2019, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.11.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the lorry. It is contended that on 17.11.2010, the petitioner who was a cleaner to the lorry was sitting in the cabin and when the lorry reached the outskirts of Dubba Thanda Matoor Village, the petitioner tried to push the electrical wires coming across the lorry, with the help of a stick and then, the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner as a result he slipped and fell down from the cabin of the lorry and the tyres of the lorry ran over right leg of the petitioner, as a result petitioner sustained fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Durga Shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda where the petitioner underwent surgery and was in patient for twenty days. The Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2010 against the driver of offending vehicle for the punishable offence under Section 338 of IPC. 3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner has undergone treatment for a period of 20 days and also conducted operation to the right thigh and steal rod has been inserted and thereafter rod was removed from the body of the petitioner. The petitioner was completely bed ridden for six months and also incurred huge expenditure in the hospital and due to accident, the petitioner is unable to walk freely either on road or on ladder and the petitioner is unable to lift heavy articles. As a result petitioners lost his cleaner job. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident. 4. As a result petitioners lost his cleaner job. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under: i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to negligent driving of lorry No.ABK 3606 on 17.11.2010? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what is quantum and from whom? iv) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A12 on behalf of petitioner. None examined on behalf of respondents but Ex.B1-Insurance copy was marked. 7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence in the proper way and contended that at the time of accident the petitioner was standing near the lorry and was lifting the electric wires with the help of wooden stick and then, the driver drove the lorry in negligent manner thereby the petitioner fell under the tyres. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner was hale ad healthy aged about 24 years, and used to do lorry cleaner work and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contribute the same for the welfare of his family. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner was hale ad healthy aged about 24 years, and used to do lorry cleaner work and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contribute the same for the welfare of his family. Due to the accident petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over the body i.e., fracture injuries to right thigh and right foot and serious injuries to both hands, face and chest and was shifted to Durga Shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda, where petitioner undergone treatment for a period of 20 days as inpatient and the hospital also conducted operation petitioner’s right leg and implants (rod) has been inserted, for which petitioner have spent Rs.61,557/- for the treatment. The said implant (rod) was removed from the petitioner’s right leg and the surgery costed around Rs.30,000/-. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that thereafter, Medical Board, Nalgonda issued disability certificate to the petitioner showing 40% disability, the disability certificate was marked as Ex.A7. The Tribunal held that there is evidence on record to show that the petitioner is suffering 40% disability due to sequelae at right knee with restricted movement at knee joint, but not awarded just compensation to the petitioner and dismissed the claim petition. Hence prayed this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which needs no interference. 12. Heard, Ms. Annapurna Sreeram , learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appeared for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 13. The points which arose for consideration before this Court in this appeal are that: i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claimant petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and dismissed the claim petition? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 & 2: 14. 13. The points which arose for consideration before this Court in this appeal are that: i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claimant petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and dismissed the claim petition? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 & 2: 14. Admittedly, on 17.11.2010, the petitioner was standing on the door of the lorry and was lifting the wires with the help of sticks and while he was lifting suddenly the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle in rash and negligent manner thereby the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body and he was admitted in Durga Shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda for the treatment of i) Crush Injury on right thigh, ii) Avulment Skin Flap of right thigh iii) Fracture of funeral Candle iv) Fracture Patella lateral and the petitioner underwent surgery and was inpatient for 20 days i.e., from 17.11.2020 to 06.12.2010. PW.2 Dr.I.Kameshwar deposed that petitioner was brought to the hospital on 17.11.2020 and upon examination, he was sustained crush injury on right thigh, avulsion skin flap 30 x 8 x 1/2cm right thigh laterial aspect, fracture femoral condyle lateral and fracture patella lateral aspect right. After the treatment for about three weeks, the petitioner was discharged on 06.12.2010 with an advice to take bed rest for six months and Ex.A2-Medial Certificate, ExA8-Medical bills, Ex.A9-Discharge Summary Ex.A10-Medical Prescriptions Ex.A11- Pharmacy bills was issued by PW2 and further submitted that petitioner was suffering from knee stiffness and contraction, which is temporary and after physiotherapy it may diminish gradually, however with the said disability, the petitioner cannot lift heavy weights and cannot run as ordinary person. 15. The Medical Board, Nalgonda examined the petitioner and found that he was suffering from 40% permanent disability due to sequelae at right knee with restricted movement at knee joint and that the petitioner cannot work as previously due to the injury and issued Ex.A7-Disability certificate. However, on keen perusal of the Ex.A7, it is found that the Medical Board has given the disability certificate with regard to the limb and not to the whole body and in the cross examination, the PW.2 stated that limb constitute 30% of the body. 16. However, on keen perusal of the Ex.A7, it is found that the Medical Board has given the disability certificate with regard to the limb and not to the whole body and in the cross examination, the PW.2 stated that limb constitute 30% of the body. 16. The Medical Board, Nalgonda has mentioned the disability of the petitioner @ 40% for the limb and not for whole body. In similar case, i.e. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must distinguish between permanent and functional disability. Even if a doctor certifies 45% disability, the Courts shall reduce if the person can still perform gainful work. The relevant paragraph is extracted for ready reference hereunder: “The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%.” 17. Considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar’s case (cited above) , this Court is inclined to take the disability of the petitioner @ 20% for calculating loss of future earning on account of disability. In view of the above observation, it can be safely conduced that accident occurred due to the fall of the petitioner from the lorry during the course of employment hence, this Point No.1 is answer in favour of appellant and against respondents. In view of the above observation, it can be safely conduced that accident occurred due to the fall of the petitioner from the lorry during the course of employment hence, this Point No.1 is answer in favour of appellant and against respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for just compensation. 18. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as ‘cleaner’, the petitioner could not produced the Income certificate to substantiate his claim. In this regard, it is imperative to look into the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar , 2001 (8) SCC 197 held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed regarding the ground realities by the Courts. In the present fact and circumstances of the case and considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein, the income of the deceased therein was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, therefore this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of a petitioner as Rs.4,500/- per month. 19. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 and considering the age of the petitioner as 24 years which is not dispute by either of the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- X 12). Thus the loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 20% would come to Rs.15,120 (75,600 x 20%). 20. As per column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and considering the age of the petitioner as 24 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner age group between 21-25 years is ‘18’. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.2,72,160/- (15,120 x 18). 21. This petitioner has incurred Rs.61,557/- towards medical bills and this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.61,560/- under the head of ‘medical bills’ towards medical expenses. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.2,72,160/- (15,120 x 18). 21. This petitioner has incurred Rs.61,557/- towards medical bills and this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.61,560/- under the head of ‘medical bills’ towards medical expenses. PW2 has suggested in the cross examination that Six Month rest was advised to the petitioner, hence, this Court is inclined to grant six months monthly income to the petitioner i.e., Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6) towards ‘loss of earnings’ 22. This Court is also inclined to grant compensation under conventional heads of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘future treatment’; Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferance’; Rs.10,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, Rs.5,000/- towards ‘transportation charges’ and Rs.5,000/- towards ‘damages to clothes’ 23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. This court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to just and fair compensation and calculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference. Head Amount arrived at by this Court Loss of future earning on account of disability Rs.2,72,160/- Six Month earning Rs.27,000/- Medical Bills Rs.61,560/- Future treatment Rs.25,000/- Pain and sufferance Rs.10,000/- Extra-Nourishment Rs.5,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.5,000/- Damage to Clothes Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.4,10,720/- 24. Accordingly for the reasons stated above, the Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of petitioner/claimant against respondents. The appeal is partly allowed and the order, dated 29.06.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014, is liable to be and accordingly set aside and the claim petition is partly allowed. 25. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for an compensation of Rs.4,10,720/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ten Thousand and Seven Hundred Twenty Rupees only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.