JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order, dt.10.11.2021, in MVOP.No.2772 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad(for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,40,750/- to Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the accident that occurred on 15.01.2013. 2. For brevity, parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on the fateful day, at about 4:30 p.m., the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 11 AE 0018, with one Pavan as a pillion rider, proceeding from Satyanarayanapuram towards CPRI, Medipally, on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached the place of accident, the driver of a lorry bearing registration No. AP 04 Y 9070 came from behind in a high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, the claimant and the pillion rider fell out from the motorcycle, and the claimant sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to Spark Hospital near Uppal and was subsequently shifted to Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, Kothapet, for better treatment. 4. The police, Madipally registered a criminal case in Crime No. 33 of 2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle owned by the 1 st respondent for the offences punishable under Section 337 IPC. 5. It was further contended by the claimant that he was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning about Rs.12,000/- per month as a car driver. However, due to the fractures and multiple injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered physical deformity, incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-, and also suffered permanent disability, rendering him unfit to drive a vehicle, and that due to the grievous nature of the injuries, the claimant was unable to attend to any work for a period of six months and was required to engage a permanent attendant during the said period, besides it, he incurred transportation charges. Thus, it was contended that the claimant is entitled to the total compensation claimed of Rs.7,00,000/- under various heads from respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry, as jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 6. The 1 st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. The 2 nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the material averments relating to the age, occupation, income, and health condition of the claimant, the manner of the accident, and the alleged consequences arising therefrom. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant himself at a high speed. It was further contended that the compensation claimed and the rate of interest sought were excessive. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and that the offending vehicle was not fit for plying at the time of the accident, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 8. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 15.01.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 04 Y 9070? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and whether the respondents are liable for the compensation, if so to what extent? 3) To what relief? 9. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A8 adduced on behalf of the claimant, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the 1 st respondent and that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the 2 nd respondent. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained and the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,40,750/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the same. 10. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 11. 10. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 11. Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Shreyas Reddy Yellagiri, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards permanent disability, despite the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant. It was further contended that only meagre amounts were awarded under the heads of pain & suffering, loss of earnings, and extra nourishment, and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, the same needs enhancement. It was also contended that no amounts were awarded towards transportation and attendant charges. Thus, prayed for grant of just and proper compensation. 13. Per contra, both the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that, in the absence of any proof of disability, the Tribunal committed no error in declining to award any amount towards permanent disability. It was further contended that the compensation of Rs.1,40,750/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medicines, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and damage to clothing is just and reasonable, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. 15. Upon a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and that, as a result thereof, the claimant sustained injuries. It was also duly established that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent and thus, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the respondents, jointly and severally. 16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, though the claimant asserted to have suffered permanent disability, no disability certificate was produced to substantiate the said claim. Further, PW.2, the Doctor who treated the claimant, did not depose that the claimant suffered any permanent disability due to the accident. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation towards permanent disability. 17. Further, PW.2, the Doctor who treated the claimant, did not depose that the claimant suffered any permanent disability due to the accident. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation towards permanent disability. 17. Further, a perusal of the award reveals that, out of the total compensation of Rs.1,40,750/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.65,750/- was granted towards medical expenses. The said amount is supported by the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A4 to A8. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding the said amount towards medical expenses. 18. However, considering the nature of the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment undergone by him, as deposed by PW2, who treated the claimant, which is supported by documentary evidence, and as the claimant was admittedly working as a driver, in all probabilities, the claimant would not have been able to attend to his normal duty or any other work for a minimum period of four (04) months, and thus, the Tribunal erred in restricting the same to two (02) months. Though the claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a car driver, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said claim. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/-. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of four months, amounting to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.9,000/- × 4 months). 19. As regards the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, a perusal of Ex.A4/discharge summary and the evidence of PW.2, Doctor, reveals that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Considering the nature and severity of the injuries, the said amount appears to be inadequate and warrants enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- X 2 grievous injuries). 20. In addition, though no oral evidence was adduced in support of the claimant’s claim towards transportation and attendant charges, considering the severity of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. 20. In addition, though no oral evidence was adduced in support of the claimant’s claim towards transportation and attendant charges, considering the severity of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. However, the amounts of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment and damage to clothing, respectively, are just and reasonable and do not call for any interference. 21. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.2,38,750/-, which is as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 1 Medical expenses Rs. 65,750/- 2 Pain & Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- X 2 grievous injuries) 3 Loss of earnings Rs.36,000/- (Rs.9,000/- X 4 months) 4 Transportation Rs.10,000/- 5 Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/- 6 Extra Nourishment Rs.16,000/- 7 Damage to clothing Rs. 1,000/- Total compensation: Rs.2,38,750/- 22. Coming to the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% per annum. However, in order to maintain uniformity and parity with the settled principles of law, this Court finds it just and reasonable to enhance the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum, in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 23. Accordingly, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED modifying the Award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,40,750/- to Rs.2,38,750/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The 2nd respondent- Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.