JUDGMENT : G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (hereinafter ‘‘Tribunal” for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.10 of 2014 by order and decree dated 07.02.2020, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 09.06.2013, the petitioner along with others were proceeding to Suryapet for attending a function in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.AP-25-AQ-1512; while so, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and when they reached Thirumalagiri Mandal outskirts near Eedulaparre Thanda, at about 15:00 hours, some goats suddenly came across the road due to which the driver of the vehicle applied sudden breaks and the vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Metro Hospital, Suryapet, where she underwent treatment for one day and on 10.06.2013, she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where she underwent treatment as inpatient from 10.06.2013 till 17.06.2013 and the petitioner was operated in the said Hospital. Based on a complaint, the Police, Thirumalagiri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2013 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the said vehicle. 4. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years and was engaged in milk business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of zygomatic bone on left side, grievous injuries on face, blunt injury on chest and abdomen, fracture on ribs, injuries on both hands and legs, head injury, and also suffered multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body, and as such, the petitioner lost her earnings during the period she was undergoing treatment. It is further stated that the petitioner had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment and medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for transportation, and she further incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- towards other expenses including extra nourishment; the petitioner also sought a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further stated that the petitioner is not a third party and the policy does not cover the risk of the persons who were travelling in the crime vehicle. Furthermore, the occurrence of accident was not reported by the insured on the date of accident and also concerned police has not sent any information regarding the alleged accident to respondent No.2 in Form No.54 under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-25-AQ-1512 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries and fractures sustained in the above accident. If so, to what amount and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.C1 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,300/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, to be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads. 9. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and perused the record. 10. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner proved her case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A15, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that due to the said accident, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital and had to undergo surgery also. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the loss of earnings during the period she has undergone treatment and the period of bed rest thereafter. Considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation under the head of ‘loss of earnings’. The learned counsel prayed to allow the Appeal and grant just and reasonable compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads and therefore, interference of this Court is unwarranted. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this court? If so, whether the appellant/claim petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation?” 13. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 07.02.2020. There is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet), Ex.A3 (Medical Certificates) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and answered the same in favour of the petitioner. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not placed any evidence to establish that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as milk vendor. 15. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not placed any evidence to establish that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as milk vendor. 15. The dairy business in India is largely unorganized, comprising countless small milk producers/vendors who sell milk to local milk vendors or directly to the consumers in their vicinity. Though the milk business provides livelihood to several persons, these persons do not maintain formal verifiable income records as the entire business model runs on cash and also on account of lack of formal accounting or book keeping and such absence of formal income records cannot be allowed to become a barrier to the petitioner in deriving the benefits of a beneficial legislation. Further, it is to be noted that the Indian judiciary has always adopted a humanitarian stance and the Courts have consistently in various judgments held that the lack of formal income records cannot be an impediment in awarding ‘just compensation’ to victims of road accidents in the unorganized sector. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial/social welfare legislation and its primary object is to provide relief to accident victims and their families, without entanglement in procedural technicalities. As such, requiring a daily wage earner like the petitioner, who is a milk vendor, to produce income proof/certificate would be unrealistic and would defeat the very purpose of the beneficial legislation. 16. The cornerstone of the Motor Vehicles Act is the principle of ‘just compensation’. This means, the compensation should be fair, reasonable and equitable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly stated that the Courts must take a liberal and pragmatic approach, especially for victims from informal economy/unorganized sector and cannot adopt a rigid/pedantic view that penalizes a person for the nature of their employment. 17. In the absence of any definite proof of income, the notional income of the petitioner could be taken for computing the loss of earnings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Ors vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited , [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] has held that in the absence of any specific evidence to prove the income of a deceased or injured, notional income could be taken as the basis for calculating compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Ors vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited , [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] has held that in the absence of any specific evidence to prove the income of a deceased or injured, notional income could be taken as the basis for calculating compensation. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that considering the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month in connection with an accident which occurred in the year 2008. Considering the law laid down in the above case and also taking note of the fact that the year of accident being 2013, this Court is inclined to consider monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/-, which is just and reasonable. 18. In regard to the quantum of compensation, it is evident from the record that there is no dispute that the petitioner sustained a grievous injury and simple injuries all over the body; that due to said injuries the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 10.06.2013 to 17.06.2013; petitioner had to undergo surgery and follow up treatments etc. Although, the petitioner has not clearly mentioned the period for which loss of earnings are sought, this Court after considering the nature of injuries suffered and age of the petitioner, is of the considered opinion that at least three months time would be a reasonable period to fully recover and become fit to engage in her daily routine. Thus, considering the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/- and the time period of three months for recovery, ‘loss of earnings’ is computed at Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7,500 x 3 months). 19. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence under Exs.A-3 to A-15 has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards one grievous injury; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.1,05,272/- under the head of medical expenses; a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation; a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of extra nourishment; and a sum of Rs.5,028/- towards loss of amenities. The same appears to be just and reasonable and do not call for any interference by this Court. 20. The same appears to be just and reasonable and do not call for any interference by this Court. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations. 21. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,00,300/- to Rs.2,22,800/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.