JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (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 is that on 09.12.2014, when the petitioner was returning from Charlapally Village to Nalgonda Town on his motor bike bearing No.AP-24-AR-5800 and while taking a turn at Marriguda bye pass road towards Nalgonda side, one Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636 proceeding from Panagal towards Hyderabad, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down, sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda, from there he was shifted to Srilaxmi Hospital, Nalgonda and on the advise of doctor, he was referred to Sri Sai Neuro Super Specialty Hospital, at Kachiguda, Hyderabad. His case is that he incurred huge medical expenditure and thus, sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the car and that he is not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle and thus, in case of any compensation awarded by the Court, it is only respondent No.3 who is liable to pay compensation. 5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that he has sold the Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636 to Maruthi True Value on 25.08.2014 and in turn the said Maruthi True Value has sold the vehicle to respondent No.1 and by the date of accident, the car was already sold away. Therefore, he is noway concerned to the present case. 6. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Therefore, he is noway concerned to the present case. 6. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the 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 Car was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.13,54,827/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard the submissions of Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner has suffered a lot due to traumatic paraplegia pursuant to the accident and that he has sustained severe spine injury. He further argued that the petitioner used to run a Cycle store and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month, but the tribunal has taken a meager amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum and thus, arrived at a very low amount of compensation. He further submitted that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 88% as stated by the District Medical Board. However, the petitioner is in vegetative state and thus 100% loss of functional disability has to be taken in this case. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation by considering all these aspects. He further argued that PW4 was examined to prove the disability of the petitioner who deposed that petitioner is in vegetative state and he requires an attendant to perform even his routine daily activities. Hence, the attendant charges also have to be awarded in the present case. 12. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation by considering all these aspects. He further argued that PW4 was examined to prove the disability of the petitioner who deposed that petitioner is in vegetative state and he requires an attendant to perform even his routine daily activities. Hence, the attendant charges also have to be awarded in the present case. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has argued that the disability certificate itself discloses that it is a temporary disability and the petitioner has failed to file any proof of his business and that he has not claimed attendant charges in the claim petition before the tribunal and therefore, the same cannot be considered. 13. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:- 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 14. Point No.1:- a) The case of the appellant is that he suffered a lot due to the injuries in the accident and sustained 88% disability and also incurred huge medical expenditure, but the tribunal has granted meager amount towards compensation. In support of his case, he got examined PW2 to 4. b) PW3/Dr.K.V.R Shastry who is a Senior Neuro Surgeon since 2015 at SKS Hospital, Kachiguda. It is elicited from him that he has treated the petitioner as he was admitted on 09.12.2014 and that he was operated on 11.12.2014 to stabilize C5, C-6 to T1, T2 with screws and rods and he was discharged on 18.12.2014. He further deposed that he has again seen the patient on 03.08.2019 and the patient did not have any significant improvement in neuroligal status in the lower limbs, since the injury was sustained five years ago and that the chances of further recovery are less. It is further elicited from him that Ex.A4 and A5 are issued by the SKS Hospital, Kachiguda. c) PW2 is the Billing Manager of Sai Krishna Hospital at Kachiguda, it is elicited from him that the petitioner paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards inpatient bill at their hospital, Ex.A7 is issued by them. Nothing contra is elicited during the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 to discredit their evidence. d) PW4/Dr. c) PW2 is the Billing Manager of Sai Krishna Hospital at Kachiguda, it is elicited from him that the petitioner paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards inpatient bill at their hospital, Ex.A7 is issued by them. Nothing contra is elicited during the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 to discredit their evidence. d) PW4/Dr. I. Kameshwar who is a Civil Surgeon in Orthopedic Department at District Head Quarters Hospital at Nalgonda, he issued Ex.A6 along with the members of the Board. As per their assessment the petitioner sustained 88% disability which is post traumatic sequel lower limbs sustained due to an accident and they recommended that the said disability has to be re-assessed after three years and that again the applicant has appeared before them on 24.09.2019 and that again they have assessed the disability to be 88% under Ex.C1. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not treated the patient. He admitted that he has not mentioned that the disability is permanent or temporary in Ex.A6, but he added that under Ex.C1 it is implied that it is a permanent disability. e) PW5/Dr.G. Yadaiah is a Physiotheraphist who runs Sri Balaji Physiotheraphy Clinic since December 2014 at Nalgonda. It is elicited from him that the petitioner attended physiotherapy sessions under him from 20.12.2014 to 30.06.2015 twice a day. Again from 08.08.2015 to 08.10.2015, 01.01.2016 to 31.05.2016, 01.06.2016 to 30.09.2016 and 01.10.2016 to 31.10.2016 and that totally petitioner paid Rs.15,000/- per month and that he has taken treatment for almost a period of two years, in total he has paid an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- towards physiotherapy. The bill issued by him is at Serial No.18 to 22 in the list of medical bills filed under Ex.A7. mere suggestions were given in his cross examination which were denied by him. f) A perusal of Ex.A4/Injury Certificate reveals that the petitioner sustained traumatic paraplegia/bilateral pleural effusion, the said document is issued by SKS Hospital, Kachiguda. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary issued by the said hospital which shows that the petitioner was admitted on 09.12.2014 and discharged on 17.12.2014. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued in 2016 by the District Medical Board, which shows that the petitioner sustained 88% of temporary disability i.e., post traumatic sequel limbs due to an accident. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary issued by the said hospital which shows that the petitioner was admitted on 09.12.2014 and discharged on 17.12.2014. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued in 2016 by the District Medical Board, which shows that the petitioner sustained 88% of temporary disability i.e., post traumatic sequel limbs due to an accident. Ex.C1 is also a disability certificate, dated 24.09.2019 which is issued in 2019 by the District Medical Board showing that he sustained 88% disability. Thus, it substantiates the oral evidence of PW3 to 5, PW4 is the doctor who issued the disability certificate. g) The injuries spoken by PW3 and as disclosed from the injury certificate under Ex.A4 and the discharge summary under Ex.A5 have a nexus with the disability sustained by the petitioner as revealed from Ex.A6 and Ex.C1. It is further elicited from the evidence of PW3 & 4 coupled with Ex.A6 and Ex.C1 that there was no much improvement in the condition of the petitioner from 2014 to 2019, thus the disability remained to be the same i.e., 88%. The nature of injuries and the treatment underwent by the petitioners are discussed supra. It reveals that the petitioner must have undergone a lot of pain and suffering during the entire period of treatment due to the spine injury. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded under the head pain and suffering. h) The petitioner age is shown to be 40 years under Ex.A6/the disability certificate issued in 2016 and the date of accident is 2014. Therefore, he might have been aged 38 years as on the date of accident. The contention of the petitioner is that he used to run a Cycle Store to earn his living and used to earn an income around Rs.25,000/- per month. Considering his age, it is opined that the petitioner must have been into some sort of an avocation to earn his living and to support his family. i) 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 present case, he is stated to have been running a Cycle Store as per the contention of the petitioner. No proof is filed in the present case. In the present case, he is stated to have been running a Cycle Store as per the contention of the petitioner. No proof is filed in the present case. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month can be assessed as the income of the petitioner on a reasonable hypothesis. j) Keeping in view the injuries and the disability suffered by him, the loss of earnings for a period of one year is awarded. Therefore, an amount of Rs.54,000/- i.e., (4,500 x12) is awarded under the head loss of earnings. k) With regard to the medical expenses, Rs.2,16,000/- towards physiotherapy is awarded and Rs.2,25,000/- is awarded towards treatment and some medical bills and it also elicited from the evidence of PW2 and 3 that they have also prescribed medicines. Thus, towards the purchase of medicines, specific bills are not filed by the petitioner. However, Rs.50,000 /- is awarded towards purchase of medicines and the petitioner also filed a bunch of medical bills under Ex.A7 for an amount of Rs.8,48,827/-. From the said amount, the bills filed under Ex.A9 that is to an extent of Rs.2,04,000/- and Rs.5,000/- are deducted, as they are not fit for consideration as PW1 failed to examine the authorities of the said hospital to prove the same. Therefore, an amount of Rs.6,39,827/- is awarded under the head medical expenses. l) It is observed that the tribunal has awarded amounts under the heads like extra-nourishment, medical expenses, pain and suffering and permanent disability, but has not awarded any amounts towards transportation and attendant charges. Though the counsel for Insurance Company has said that the petitioner has not pleaded with regard to the attendant charges in the petition, it is the common knowledge that when the person is bedridden, he definitely requires an attendant. It is elicited that the petitioner was suffering with spine injury and could not improve even after five years. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 /- (Rs.2,000 x 60 months) is granted towards attendant charges. Further towards transportation, he would incur transport charges for every visit to the doctor for which also he is not compensated before the tribunal. During the spells of treatment i.e., Sai Krishna Hospital and to the physiotherapist, he must have gone in a vehicle and thus, towards transport charges, awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 24 months, he would incur for about Rs.1,20,000/-. During the spells of treatment i.e., Sai Krishna Hospital and to the physiotherapist, he must have gone in a vehicle and thus, towards transport charges, awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 24 months, he would incur for about Rs.1,20,000/-. m) All the other aspects are considered by the tribunal. As per the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 10 SCC 343, 88% partial disability suffered by the petitioner is scaled down to 50% towards whole body and the functional disability has to be assessed. Though the counsel says that he is in vegetative state and 100% functional disability has to be considered, no such evidence is placed on record. It can only be elicited that he suffered 88% disability and under Ex.A6, it is shown as temporary disability and Ex.C1, does not disclose any such nature of disability. However, it is inferred by the doctors that there is no improvement in the status of the petitioner even in 2019. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, 50% of loss of functional disability which results in loss of earnings is taken in this case. Therefore, the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore an addition of 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.6,300/- and then Rs.5,67,000/- (Rs.75,600/- x 50% =37,800 x 15) would be the loss of future earnings because of permanent disability. n) 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 54,000/- 3. Loss of future earnings 5,67,000/- 4. Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 9,79,827/- Total 17,00,827/- o) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,54,827/-, while, this Court arrived at a compensation of Rs.17,00,827/- and hence, it is held that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation. Thus, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly 15. 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.17,00,827/- from that of Rs.13,54,827/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,00,827/- from that of Rs.13,54,827/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of compensation. 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 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 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. 16. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 02.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,54,827/- to Rs.17,00,827/-. The rate of interest is increased from 6% to 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 Insurance Company is 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-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.