JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.268 of 2005 dated 05.02.2008. 2.1 Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2.2 Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the appeal is served on 15.10.2008, none appeared for him. 3.1 Appellant – petitioner has filed petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 3.2 It is stated in the petition that on 10.03.2004 while the appellant – petitioner was travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP-25-U- 1176 from Nallur to Armoor, when it crossed Nehrunagar School in the limits of Balkonda village the driver of the said jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, applied sudden breaks without giving any signals, due to which the rider of the hero honda motor cycle which was coming behind, dashed the jeep, the appellant-petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Appellant – petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Balkonda, where he was treated as inpatient, thereafter he was continuing his follow up treatment under private doctors, underwent operations, steel rod was inserted into right leg and he incurred expenditure more than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his medical expenses and extra nourishment. The appellant - petitioner was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident, was a stone cutter and labourer on contract basis and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he could not able to do the work and prayed to allow the O.P from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. Respondent No.1 filed counter and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, the jeep is insured with the respondent No.2 which is valid from 20.01.2004 to 19.01.2025, thus the policy is in force as on the date of accident, therefore respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the O.P. against him. 5. 5. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age, avocation of the appellant – petitioner. Further it is contended that the driver and insurer of motor cycle are proper and necessary parties to the O.P., the respondent No.1 has violated the policy conditions and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle bearing No.AP25-U-1176 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 7. Appellant – petitioner is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 – Dr.N.Sunanda and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Respondents have not led any evidence in support of their contentions. 8. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the O.P., awarded Rs.31,300/- as compensation payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant and failed to note the amount incurred by him towards his treatment. Further the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards future treatment and also erred in taking Rs.80/- per day as the income of the appellant - petitioner without considering the evidence on record. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , (2011) 13 SCC 236 , (ii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another , (2014) 11 SCC 178 , (iii) Shaik Masood Vs. Syed Arif and another, MACMA No. 1689 of 2010 dated 08.11.2024, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and (iv) Md. Raheem Vs. L. Bhoom Rao and another, MACMA No. 1709 of 2010, dated 08.11.2024, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded the compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Raheem Vs. L. Bhoom Rao and another, MACMA No. 1709 of 2010, dated 08.11.2024, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded the compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner has filed calculation memo. 12. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellant - petitioner is entitled for just compensation, if so? (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.268 of 2005, dated 05.02.2008 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? 14. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner has challenged the quantum in the appeal. 15. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is as under: S. No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Loss of income for two months Rs.4,800/- Rs.80/- per day 2. One grievous injury Rs.15,000/- 3. Three simple injuries Rs.6,000/- Rs.2,000/- for each simple injury 4. Medicine Rs.4,000/- 5. Extra nourishment Rs.1,500/- Total 31,300/- 16. The evidence of the appellant – petitioner is that he is a stone cutter and labourer on contract basis and was earning Rs.12,000/-per month, the learned Tribunal has arrived that the appellant – petitioner has not filed any document to show his income and thereby considered him as daily wage labourer and fixed an amount of Rs.80/- per day. 17.1 In Ramachandrappa 1 the Supreme Court has observed that the appellant therein who was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident but the Tribunal has reduced it to Rs.3,000/- on the assumption that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004 was Rs.100/- per day. Further it is held that there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. 17.2 In the above said decision insurance company has not contested the matter thereby the Supreme Court has taken the earning of the coolie at Rs.4,500/- per month. 17.2 In the above said decision insurance company has not contested the matter thereby the Supreme Court has taken the earning of the coolie at Rs.4,500/- per month. Coming to the case on hand, Insurance Company has contested the matter before the Tribunal, hence the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18.1 Since the appellant – petitioner is a stone cutter and labourer on contract basis, this Court fixes the income of the appellant – petitioner at Rs.4,000/- per month which will meet the ends of justice. 18.2 The learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the appellant – petitioner could not do any work for a period of two months for arriving the loss of income, this Court is also accepts the same. 19. In V.Mekala 2 the Supreme Court has awarded litigation expenses, hence the appellant – petitioner is also entitled for litigation expenses. 20. In Shaik Masood 3 this Court has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards one grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- for simple injury. 21. In Md.Raheem 4 this Court has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards one grievous injury. 22. The appellant – petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- for grievous injury and Rs.15,000/- towards simply injury. 23. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, hence the appellant – petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. 24. PW2, who issued Ex.A3-wound certificate deposed that the appellant – petitioner has sustained one grievous injury i.e., Supra malleola region of right tibia and three simple injuries viz., bruises over the chest right side, fore head and right hand. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the appellant – petitioner has received one grievous injury and three simple injuries. 25. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S. No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income for two months (Rs.4,000/- per month) Rs.8,000/- (4,000 x 2) 2. One grievous injury Rs.25,000/- 3. Three simple injuries (Rs.15,000/- to each injury) Rs.45,000/- (15,000 x 3) 4. Medical expenses Rs.4,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.5,000/- 6. Litigation expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Pain and suffering and extra nourishment Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.1,22,000/- 26. Loss of income for two months (Rs.4,000/- per month) Rs.8,000/- (4,000 x 2) 2. One grievous injury Rs.25,000/- 3. Three simple injuries (Rs.15,000/- to each injury) Rs.45,000/- (15,000 x 3) 4. Medical expenses Rs.4,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.5,000/- 6. Litigation expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Pain and suffering and extra nourishment Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.1,22,000/- 26. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683. Hence points are answered accordingly. 27. In the result, MACMA.No.3588 of 2008 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 05.02.2008, passed in O.P.No.268 of 2005, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.31,300/- is enhanced to Rs.1,22,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellant - petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.