JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.11.2020 in O.P.No.1048 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 21.03.2008 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner was going along with the pillion rider on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-24R-5052 from Chityal towards Gandorigudem and when they reached Sri Raghavendra Petrol Bunk at Vattimarthy Village, one Lorry bearing No.AP-29U-2898 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and tried to overtake another vehicle and dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result the petitioner and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narkatpally and from there to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar for better treatment. He incurred huge expenditure and sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the Lorry was not holding valid driving license. Hence, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-29U-2898? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A19. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,91,600/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,91,600/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner sustained 40% disability, but the tribunal has granted low amount towards loss of earning capacity. He further argued that the petitioner is a driver, earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but the tribunal has considered the income to be Rs.4,500/- per month which is very low. He further submitted that the tribunal has failed to consider the loss of future prospects of the petitioner and has awarded very meager amount towards compensation. He further submitted that the tribunal has awarded very low amounts under various heads to which the petitioner is entitled. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted low rate of interest @ 6% hence, he prayed to enhance the same. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that though the Doctor has deposed that 40% disability is sustained by the petitioner, it is a temporary nature and the renewal of driving license of the petitioner shows that he has not lost any earning capacity and thus, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. He further argued that the petitioner failed to file any income proof and therefore Rs.4,500/- per month assessed by the tribunal is very reasonable and therefore, prayed to uphold the decision of the tribunal. 12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ? 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1 :- a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. His grievance is that he sustained grievous injuries and incurred huge medical expenses. In support of his case, he got examined PW2. b) PW2/Dr. 2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ? 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1 :- a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. His grievance is that he sustained grievous injuries and incurred huge medical expenses. In support of his case, he got examined PW2. b) PW2/Dr. Kamaraju is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:- 1) Head Injury, 2) Left Frontal Contusion, 3) Avulsion Injury Right Knee Joint, 4) Chip Fracture of Lateral Condyle of Right Tibia, 5) Brachial Plexus Injury (Right) Upper Trunk and that he was treated initially at Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and then he was shifted to L.B Nagar. He was treated for his fracture injuries in their hospital and he was admitted on 21.03.2008 and was discharged on 31.03.2008. He further stated that the petitioner sustained disability of 40% which is partial and permanent and he further stated that Ex.A7 and A18 is issued by him. c) PW3/Dr. Subodh Raju is the Neuro Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, his evidence further reveals that he too has treated the petitioner conservatively with medication during his stay in the Kamineni Hospital as inpatient. His evidence further reveals that Ex.A5/discharge summary, Ex.A6, A8 to A12, A14, 15, 17 and 19 are issued by their hospital. It is further elicited from him that he was one of the doctors of the team who treated the petitioner along with Dr.Kamaraju/Orthopedic Surgeon. d) PW4/P. Rohini is the Billing Incharge of the Kamineni Hospital. It is elicited from her that Rs.56,188/- was collected towards bill from the petitioner. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 stood unshaken during the course of cross examination. Their evidence is supported by the Ex.A6, A8 to A12, A14, 15, 17 and 19. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him are proved. A perusal of Ex.A30/MLC record shows that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, Ex.A4 is the outpatient card, while Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, which shows that he was treated from 21.03.2008 and was discharged on 31.03.2008 which further reveals the details of the treatment. A perusal of Ex.A30/MLC record shows that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, Ex.A4 is the outpatient card, while Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, which shows that he was treated from 21.03.2008 and was discharged on 31.03.2008 which further reveals the details of the treatment. Ex.A6 is also an outpatient card showing that he went for follow up treatment, the prescriptions are filed under Ex.A7, A8, A11, A10, A12 and the medical bills are filed under Ex.A13. The document under Ex.A16 is the Driving License of the petitioner showing that he was having a valid driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle, light motor vehicle and also HMV. The disability certificate under Ex.A18 issued by PW2 shows that he suffered 40% disability due to avulsion injury in the right leg. Thus the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, his treatment and the disability sustained by him as discussed above reveals that, the petitioner must have underwent acute pain and suffering due to the said injuries. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. e) With regard to the medical expenses, the evidence of PW4 coupled with Ex.A13 reveals that the petitioner has paid Rs.56,188/- towards medical bills. Hence, it is rounded up to Rs.56,200/- towards medical expenses. It is common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- under each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is awarded coming up to a total amount of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.96,200/- (56,200 + 40,000) is awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses. f) The case of the petitioner is that he used to work as driver in a Sand Lorry of one Janga Reddy and was earning Rs.6,000/- as a salary and Rs.300/- towards Batta. It is elicited from Ex.A16 that he is a driver who is capable of driving LMV and HMV. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , (2011) 12 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , (2011) 12 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the said case, it was an unskilled labour, but in the present case, he is a driver. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, Rs.6,000/- is assessed to be the monthly income of the petitioner. h) With regard to the loss of earnings, he was inpatient for a week, and he sustained fracture injuries, thus he might have taken another three months for recovery. Therefore, loss of earnings for a period of 3 months is awarded i.e., Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 3). i) The loss of future earnings have to be awarded as per the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , 2011 (10) SCC 343 . The evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate under Ex.A18 discloses 40% of temporary disability to the right leg of the petitioner which is scaled down to 20% towards the whole body and the same is taken as the loss of earning capacity. The age of the petitioner is ‘29’ years as per the disability certificate under Ex.A18 and the same is taken into consideration. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.6,000/- x 40% = Rs.2400 which comes to Rs.8,400. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.8,400 x12 =Rs.1,08,000 x 20% x 17= Rs.3,42,720/-. j) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1. Compensation under the head injuries, shock, Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2. Loss of earnings 18,000/- 3. Loss of future earnings 3,42,720/- 4. Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 96,200/- Total 5,56,920/- k) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.5,56,920/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,91,600/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,56,920/- from that of Rs.3,91,600/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,56,920/- from that of Rs.3,91,600/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of compensation and the appellant counsel contention is that it is very low. c) In T. Vijaya lakshmi vs. U. Dayamanai , MACMA No. 2294 of 2016 , a Bench of this High Court has increased the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal to that of 6% to 7.5%. d) In Pathulothu Balu vs. Devender Singh Yadav , MACMA No. 3228 of 2018 , a Bench of this High Court has increased the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal to that of 6% to 7.5% e) In Jadav Saroja Bai vs. Ghule Naga Rao and Another , 2022 SCC Online TS 606 a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation. f) In Bandavath Mangla and Another vs. Bandavath Suresh and Others , 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. M. Venkateswarulu and Others , 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 ; also interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted on the amount of compensation g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is increased to that of 7.5%. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.11.2020 in O.P.No.1048 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,91,600/- to 5,56,920/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.