JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 20.12.2016, while the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-15AQ-6356 from Theegalguttapalli Village to Choppadandi, at about 12:30 p.m., one Mahindra Van bearing No.TS02-UA-8984 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Prathima Hospital, for treatment. He incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 has 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 crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1. “ Whether the petitioner/injured-M. Srinivas sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Van bearing No.TS-02-UA-8984? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, B2 and Ex.X1, X2. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.21,84,298/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 10. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.21,84,298/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned that the petitioner was removed from service from the society, and he has argued that the petitioner got filed two disability certificates, Ex.A8 discloses 70% disability while Ex.A9 discloses 65% disability, which causes suspicion on the evidence lead by the petitioner. He further argued that PW2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner was treated conservatively, which goes to show that the petitioner has not suffered any fracture injuries. He thus, prayed to reduce the compensation. He further submitted that the disability certificates filed by the petitioner are not supported by any X-rays or any other evidence. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has lost his job due to the disability sustained by him in the accident and that previously he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month and that they have also filed Salary Certificate before the tribunal. And now they have filed a letter issued by the Railway Co-operative Society, stating that he is removed from his job. He therefore, prayed to consider the earnings of the petitioner and prayed to enhance the compensation, though, they have not filed any appeal or Cross Objection. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:- 1. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ? 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is too high. The contention of the petitioner is that he used to work as a Hamali and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. In support of his case, he got examined PW4. 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is too high. The contention of the petitioner is that he used to work as a Hamali and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. In support of his case, he got examined PW4. b) PW4 who is the President of Hamali Railway Cooperative Society, Karimnagar, he deposed before the tribunal that their society paid the petitioner a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month as he used to work as a Railway Goods Transport Hamali in Karimnagar Railway Station. It is elicited from him that Hamali work is totally a hard work and after the accident, the petitioner did not attend to work and he is walking with support of a stick and that he issued Ex.A11/income certificate of the petitioner. In his cross examination, it is elicited that they maintain registers, but has not produced the same. c) A perusal of Ex.A11 reveals that it is a letter issued by PW4 on the Letter Head of “Tirumala Srinivasa South Central Railway Goods Transport Hamali and Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Karimnagar.” It is mentioned in the said letter dated 29.11.2018 that the petitioner was paid Rs.25,000/- salary and Rs.4,000/- commission and it is a Dhruvikarana Pathram. Ex.A10 is the Identity Card of the petitioner issued by the Hamali Society. Thus, it is elicited that he used to work as hamali in the Cooperative Society. The registers are not produced and the Ex.A11 also does not reveal that it is a salary certificate, but it is brought out through the said exhibits that the petitioner worked as a Hamali in Railways. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, earnings as assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per month is opined to be just and proper. d) Learned counsel for the respondents filed a document along with a Memo before this Court and prayed to consider the same saying that the petitioner has lost his job. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that this is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, arising out of the Order and Decree passed by the tribunal. The respondent cannot file any document without a proper petition to consider the same. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that this is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, arising out of the Order and Decree passed by the tribunal. The respondent cannot file any document without a proper petition to consider the same. The document is dated 05.12.2020 and the order and decree dated 20.03.2020, that means the documents has been obtained subsequent to the decree passed by the tribunal and the accident pertains to the year 2016. If at all the petitioner was effected so badly, he could have obtained the said certificate much prior during the pendency of the case before the tribunal, but has not obtained the same. Moreover, he has filed two disability certificates under Ex.A8 and Ex.A9. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate issued on 09.11.2017 by District Medical Board, which shows that he sustained 70% disability, which is partial permanent in nature, caused to right lower limb impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequel limbs suffered in the accident. Ex.A9 is the another disability certificate relied upon by the petitioner, issued by Dr. Sathish Chander, which is obtained on 05.03.2018 disclosing that he suffered 65% of permanent partial disability stating that he is unfit to do Railway Hamali Work. He has also got examined the doctors to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him and also the treatment underwent by him. e) PW2/Dr. Satish Chander, who issued Ex.A9, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He stated that the petitioner approached him with pain and swelling in the site of the injury and that he was initially treated in NIMS Hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Upon examination, the following injuries were identified i.e., 1) Grade-II compound fracture distal 1/3 right tibia & fibula, 2) Right side posterior dislocation of Hip joint with communated acetabular fracture, 3) Right tibia patellar fracture lateral, 4) Right knee joint ACL aulusion fracture, 5) pain, swelling, deformatory of right knee and that he examined the petitioner and found that he has the difficulty of bending due to hip vestibular fracture and that he was unfit for any hard work or manual work. In future, he may require one more surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. In future, he may require one more surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he treated the petitioner conservatively after taking an X-ray at the time of treatment and that he has not conducted any surgery, and that the petitioner also came for follow up treatment and that he has not issued any estimation certificate for removal of implants. f) PW3/ Dr. P. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, he is one among the team of doctors who treated the petitioner. His evidence reveals that he was admitted at NIMS Hospital on 22.12.2016 with a history of injuries sustained in the accident on 20.12.2016 and that he was found to have sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) closed fracture right acetablular with right hip dislocation, 2) right tibial spine avulsion fracture right knee with subluxation, 3) Grade-II compound fracture both bones digital 1/3 right leg. They treated him with open reduction and relocation of right hip plating and also rush nailing of both bones of right leg. Ex.A4 is the MLC issued by their hospital. It is further elicited from him that Ex.A6, A7/discharge record and some medical bills under Ex.A12 are issued by their hospital. Nothing material was elicited from him during cross examination to dislodge his evidence. Ex.A4/Medico Legal Case record issued by NIMS hospital which shows that the petitioner sustained laceration over dorsum of right foot, wound over medial right leg, open deep wound over the leg near the knee and swelling and tenderness on the right side of pelvis and that X-rays were taken and the reports were awaited, he was referred to Orthopaedic Department. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary disclosing that he was treated in the causality ward for the said injuries. He was admitted on 22.12.2016 and was discharged on 23.12.2016. Ex.A6 is the discharge record, Ex.A4 is another discharge summary of NIMS Hospital, wherein it shows that he was admitted on 24.12.2016 and discharged on 31.12.2016. During the inpatient treatment, he was operated on 27.12.2016. Thus, all these discharge summaries and also the evidence of PW2 and 3 show that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, after which he also went to follow up treatment to PW2. During the inpatient treatment, he was operated on 27.12.2016. Thus, all these discharge summaries and also the evidence of PW2 and 3 show that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, after which he also went to follow up treatment to PW2. Thus, he must have underwent acute pain and suffering during the period of recovery. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. g) It is also revealed from the evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board that he suffered 70% disability. The petitioner has also taken another disability certificate after two years, which shows 65% disability. Therefore, the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board can be relied upon, while awarding the compensation. No estimation is submitted by the petitioner to show the future expenses, hence, the same need not be awarded. It is also admitted by PW2 that he has not given any estimation for future treatment. h) With regard to the medical bills it is awarded to the extent of bills filed by him i.e., Rs.25,698/-. It is the common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- for 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 granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thus, an amount of Rs.65,698/- (25,698/- + 40,000/-)is awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses. i) Depending on the injuries, he must have taken six months to recover from the said injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is assessed for a period of six months i.e., Rs.18,000/- x 6 which comes up to Rs.1,08,000/-. j) The disability as disclosed by Ex.A8 shows that though it is permanent in nature, it is a partial disability to right lower limb to the extent of 70%. In view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , [2011 (10 SCC 343] , the disability has to be scaled down to that of whole body and then to the loss of functional disability. In view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , [2011 (10 SCC 343] , the disability has to be scaled down to that of whole body and then to the loss of functional disability. The petitioner used to work as a Hamali and though he may not be able to continue to work as a Hamali after the accident, due to the said disability, he can as well attend to other kind of works, which are mentioned in the said disability certificate that he can perform work by manipulating with fingers by pulling and pushing, by lifting, by sitting, by standing, by reading and by writing. Thus, it does not cause 100% functional disability or the total 70% functional disability as seen from the disability certificate. Therefore, the same is scaled down to 50% to the whole body and loss of functional disability is assessed as 40% as he is an illiterate and may not be able to do job, where he can read and write, but he can do work only with his hands in a sitting position. Therefore, 40% functional disability is assessed and the same is calculated toward the loss of future earnings. The earnings assessed by the tribunal as Rs.18,000/- per month is found to be just and reasonable. The injured is aged 41 years as deposed by the petitioner himself. Therefore, adding 25% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- x 25% = Rs.4,500/- which comes to Rs.22,500/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.22,500 x12 = Rs.2,70,000 x 40% x 14= Rs.1512,000/-. k) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: S. No. Description Rs. 1 Compensation under the head ‘injuries, shock, pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2 Loss of earnings (18,000 x 6) 1,08,000/- 3 Loss of future earnings due to disability 15,12,000/- 4 Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 65,698/- Total 17,85,698/- l) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.17,85,698 /- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.21,84,298/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hence, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly. 14. Hence, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly. 14. Point No.3:- In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.21,84,298/- to 17,85,698/-. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21,84,298/- to 17,85,698/-, and the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-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 claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.