JUDGMENT : G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter ‘TSRTC’ for brevity) questioning the Award and decree, dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.P.No.106 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’ for brevity). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are as under: 3.1. The petitioner/injured filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from the respondents jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 11.04.2017 while the petitioner was returning to his Village in an RTC bus bearing No.TS-06Z-0165 after visiting Saleshwaram, when the bus reached in the limits of Lingal at about 8:30 A.M., it dashed against a protruding branch of a tree. As a result, the said branch intruded into the bus and struck the petitioner on his feet, causing grievous injuries. Consequently, the petitioner sustained crush injuries with avulsion to both feet, resulting in the loss of the head pad of his left feet and loss of left calcaneum. Immediately, petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Achampet and from there, he was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Kurnool and later, he was shifted to St. Theresa’s General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment, where he was treated from 21.06.2017 to 06.07.2017 as an in-patient and he was discharged on 07.07.2017 with an advice to take complete rest. Based on the complaint given by an eye witness, Police, Lingal Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2017 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of RTC Bus and after completing the investigation filed Charge Sheet under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of RTC Bus. 3.2. It is further stated that by the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 23 years and was working in Satish Medical Agencies as Sales Executive and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the accident, petitioner sustained crush injury with avulsion to both feet and was operated for debridement and SSG (Split-thickness Skin Graft) for both foot. Due to the accident, petitioner sustained crush injury with avulsion to both feet and was operated for debridement and SSG (Split-thickness Skin Graft) for both foot. Further, the petitioner also underwent surgery to left heel defect and SSG Calcaneus bone. Despite the treatment, the left leg is shortened by four inches and right leg is shortened by two inches and both his feet became non- functional and both feet remain unhealed. Due to the injuries, the petitioner lost his earnings for the said period and he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment, medical expenses; extra nourishment and attendant charges. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, disability sustained, negligence and involvement of crime vehicle in the accident and contended that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature. It was contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 11.04.2017 at about 08:30 hours on Saleshwaram-Pharahabad road in Lingal Police Station limits, was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of R.1 being the driver of RTC bus bearing No.TS-06-Z-0165 and whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident? 2) Whether the claim of the petitioner is excessive? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident and if so, what amount and from whom? 4) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, he himself got examined as P.W-1 apart from examining P.W-2 to P.W-7 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the TSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. 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 driver of the RTC bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said Award, the TSRTC filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Smt. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellant and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 9. Aggrieved by the said Award, the TSRTC filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Smt. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellant and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-TSRTC submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation without there being any acceptable evidence on record; that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, who categorically admitted in his complaint that he was travelling in the bus by standing on the footboard, due to which, his legs were injured; and that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are self-inflicted and are on account of contributory negligence. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that negligence of the driver of crime vehicle was not established, so as to prove the liability of Corporation and also that the petitioner failed to submit any cogent evidence to properly explain the delay of 12 days in filing the FIR. The explanation sought to be offered that the petitioner was grievously injured and the delay occurred on that count is not at all acceptable. The learned Standing Counsel for the TSRTC further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that total medical expenses incurred by the petitioner are covered under “Aarogyasri Scheme” (Government Scheme). The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the notional income of the petitioner at an exorbitant sum of Rs.8,000/- per month, in absence of any basis or income proof. The learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC vehemently argued that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the exorbitant amounts under different heads and finally, prayed to set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner supported the Award of the Tribunal and submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the amount and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the reasoned order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Consideration: 11. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner supported the Award of the Tribunal and submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the amount and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the reasoned order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Consideration: 11. Insofar as the quantum of income of the petitioner, the Tribunal did not consider the income of the petitioner in spite of the petitioner’s claim that he is earning Rs.12,000/- per month, working as Sales Executive in Satish Medical Agencies. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondents have not seriously disputed the occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Ex.A-11 salary certificate and also examined PW-6 who is the proprietor of Satish Medical Agencies, Wanaparthy before the Tribunal; however, the Tribunal considered the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month. This Court is of the considered opinion that the income fixed by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary and fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence placed on record. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal. 12. On evaluation of the medical evidence, P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the documents placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts under various heads: i) Loss of future earnings on account of disability: 13. On considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 and material placed on record under Ex.A-11 salary certificate, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal rightly considered that due to nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the fact that he was admitted in the hospital for two months; petitioner had to undergo surgery and follow up treatments etc. Further, the Tribunal noticed the nature of injuries suffered, time required to recover and become fit to engage in his daily routine and a considerable period of two years for which he was not working was taken into consideration. Thus, considering the above aspects, the sum awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of earnings’, computed at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 24 months) appears to be ‘just and reasonable’. ii) Medical expenses and treatment charges: 14. Thus, considering the above aspects, the sum awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of earnings’, computed at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 24 months) appears to be ‘just and reasonable’. ii) Medical expenses and treatment charges: 14. The Tribunal has considered the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner i.e., multiple grievous injuries and the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Administrative Officer at St. Theresa General Hospital, Kurnool and P.W.3-doctor, who treated the injured were examined. P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner was treated in their hospital by Dr. P.S. Ravikumar, Ortho Surgeon, who left the hospital by then i.e., the time when evidence was let in the matter. He further deposed that the petitioner underwent surgery to debridement and SSG to both feet, thereafter, the petitioner was operated for left heel defect and SSG calcaneus bone and discharged on 25.07.2017. PW-3 deposed that he treated the injured (petitioner) in their Hospital with crush injuries on both feet and fracture of calcaneus and fracture of medical malleolus and surgical correction for long bone fracture and wound management of Grade-III compound fracture was performed and also conducted follow up treatment. Further, P.W-7, who is one of the Member of District Medical Board, Wanaparthy assessed the disability as 44% and issued Ex.A-7-disability certificate to the injured. Though P.Ws.2, 3 and 7 were cross-examined, nothing contra could be elicited about treatment and disability of the injured. 15. The Tribunal had considered Exs.A-8 to A-10 bunch of medical bills and Exs.A-4 to A-6, discharge records and awarded a sum of Rs.2,65,521/, which the petitioner expended towards medical expenses. It is to be noted that the said expenses were incurred for the treatment undergone at St. Theresa Hospital. The medical expenses at Balaji Hospitals, Kurnool were covered under “Aarogyasri Scheme”. Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal after careful examination of all the evidence on record has rightly granted reasonable compensation under all the heads, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that unreasonable and excessive compensation amount was granted under different heads in absence of any supportive evidence, is unacceptable. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to the just compensation, as quantified by the Tribunal. 16. In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that unreasonable and excessive compensation amount was granted under different heads in absence of any supportive evidence, is unacceptable. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to the just compensation, as quantified by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under different heads and also the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In view of the above discussion, evidence and material placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects i.e., the disability sustained by the petitioner, nature of treatment undergone by the petitioner, medical expenses, and the expenses incurred towards extra nourishment etc., and has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the appellant- TSRTC failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court with the impugned Award. The Appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. The appellant-TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.