JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company. None appears on behalf of the respondent/claimant. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2015, dated 28.07.2021, seeking to set-aside the award passed against the insurance company and though liability is not finally challenged, but the main ground of challenge was the quantum of compensation. 3. The Tribunal after due enquiry has partly allowed the above MVOP filed by the respondent No.1/claimant, and awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- against a claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1. On 08.10.2012 at about 1400 hours, the respondent No.2/claimant and his friend were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-10-AS-9174 from Sangareddy towards Parigi. When they reached near Pulimamidi village after curve road, one auto bearing registration No.AP-28-TE-1320 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Due to which, the claimant received fracture injuries and the motorcycle was also damaged. The claimant was shifted to Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Hospital, later to Udai Clinic and also to Balaji Hospital, Sangareddy for better treatment, where he was admitted as inpatient, surgery was conducted by fixing nails to his right leg as the injured sustained bone fracture. 4.2. The Police, Nawabpet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet and investigation was taken up. 5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto and awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/insurance filed the present Appeal seeking to set aside the said award and though feeble attempt was made questioning the liability, the main ground of challenge is to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal though effort was made to challenge the liability on their part. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/insurance filed the present Appeal seeking to set aside the said award and though feeble attempt was made questioning the liability, the main ground of challenge is to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal though effort was made to challenge the liability on their part. 6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company, while reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit before the Tribunal, has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erroneously taken 14 months period for assessing the loss of income by taking Rs.6,000/- per month towards his earnings, without there being any evidence produced on record. He further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.84,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.150,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicine, Rs.20,000/ towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards damage of clothing and article and, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Though notice was served on respondent No.1/claimant, none has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Appeal based on the material available on record. 8. This Court, upon perusal of the record, holds that there is no contra evidence produced by the appellant-insurance company to dispute the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and it is evident from Exs.P1 to P4, which are Certified Copies of FIR, scene of offence panchanama, injury certificate and charge sheet respectively, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, as such, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. 9. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, the claimant has not filed any document in proof of his income, as on the date of the accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age, avocation, date of accident, and oral evidence of claimant, had assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- notionally as he was working as Driver of DCM Van. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts in catena of judgments held that income of the deceased/injured cannot be assessed with arithmetic precision in the absence of evidence and the Tribunal has to assess basing upon the facts and circumstances. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts in catena of judgments held that income of the deceased/injured cannot be assessed with arithmetic precision in the absence of evidence and the Tribunal has to assess basing upon the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the claimant stated that he was working as DCM Van driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to accident, he is not in a position to walk and do any work and he lost past and future income and is still undergoing treatment. 10. The claimant/injured, except examined himself as P.W.1, did not examine any other witness or place any material in proof of his income. However, considering the age, avocation, date of accident of the claimant, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the injured was stated to be working as DCM driver, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to quantum of compensation towards fracture injuries. A perusal of Ex.P3-injury certificate, Ex.P5-discharge summary, Ex.P8 - X-ray film, would show that claimant sustained fracture of femur of right leg and surgery was done to the claimant due to non-union of right femur and the same was evident from the evidence of P.W.2-Dr. S.Hari Kumar Goud and P.W.3-Dr.Vikas. From the above documentary evidence, in my considered opinion, as the claimant sustained fracture injury to right femur and he underwent surgery by putting ipisilaterial auto logus iliac crest bone grafting and removal of implants to right femur and also already undergone two surgeries, and require one more surgery, the claimant being driver cannot work for substantial period and as such, the Tribunal is justified in taking the loss of earnings for 14 months and awarded Rs.84,000/- which is just and reasonable. The contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking loss of earnings for 14 months without any evidence to that effect is hereby rejected. As regards the other contention in respect of the other heads of compensation, since no evidence has been produced by the insurance company, the findings of the Tribunal are justified and valid, the interference of the findings of the Tribunal is unwarranted by this Court. 12. As regards the other contention in respect of the other heads of compensation, since no evidence has been produced by the insurance company, the findings of the Tribunal are justified and valid, the interference of the findings of the Tribunal is unwarranted by this Court. 12. As the Appellant-insurance company failed to substantiate their case for interference of the award by this Court and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and the Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.