JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.835 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the MACT”) seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against a claim made for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Case of Claimant / Appellant : 2(i). Appellant/claimant is driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 1917. On the date of accident i.e. on 18.06.2009 with a load of gas cylinders he started at Kondapalli Village to go to Chirala, when the said lorry crossed Budampadu Village at about 12:00 midnight, a lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1882 (hereinafter refer to as offending vehicle) came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner in a zigzag way and hit the lorry in which the claimant was traveling on its right side. As a result, the claimant was struck in cabin and sustained fracture injuries to right thigh, right leg above knee, and right knee, bleeding injuries to the right leg, thumb finger, right forehead etc. Immediately, after the accident he was shifted to GGH- Guntur and thereafter for better treatment to Sanjivi Orthopedics Physiotherapy Centers, Guntur, where operation was conducted to right leg. He was treated as impatient and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was spent by him for treatment. 2(ii). Further case of the claimant is that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of offending vehicle. A case in Crime No.220 of 2009 was registered in Guntur Rural Police Station against its driver and subsequently he was charged sheeted vide C.C.No.417 of 2009 for the offences under Section 338 of IPC. 2(iii). Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry, Respondent No.2 is the insurer with whom the offending vehicle was insured. 2(iv). The claimant suffered injuries, disability and unable to work as how he was working earlier. The accident occurred due to negligent driving by Respondent No.1. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company: 4(i). 2(iv). The claimant suffered injuries, disability and unable to work as how he was working earlier. The accident occurred due to negligent driving by Respondent No.1. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company: 4(i). The claimant shall prove pleaded accident negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of offending vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2 for the offending vehicle and the same being in force at relevant time. Negligence of claimant in driving the vehicle cannot be ignored and that the claimant himself has no valid driving licence to drive the lorry. 4(ii). Further, it is claimed by the Respondent No.2 insurance company that the age, occupation, income and disability pleaded by the claimant, nature and effect of injuries stated are incorrect and that the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the strength of pleadings following issues are settled by the learned MACT: i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1882? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? Findings of the learned MACT: 6(i). With regard to issue No.1 touching the occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, claimant sustaining injuries in the accident etc, the Learned MACT believed the oral evidence of the claimant with reference to corroboration from the documentary evidence like Charge Sheet, crime record etc. 6(ii). With regard to nature and effect of injuries and quantification of compensation, learned MACT basing the evidence of claimant and doctor PW2 that three fractures were suffered by the petitioner found that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for each of the fracture. Although of disability of 20% is stated, since the petitioner claimant is not examined by Medical Board nor disability certificate is produced, the claim for compensation under the head of permanent disability cannot be accepted. However, in view of wound certificate, X-ray, discharge summary etc. claimant is entitled towards medical expenditure in a sums of Rs.10,000/- and towards pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- and for loss of earning during treatment Rs.3,000/-. However, in view of wound certificate, X-ray, discharge summary etc. claimant is entitled towards medical expenditure in a sums of Rs.10,000/- and towards pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- and for loss of earning during treatment Rs.3,000/-. In all learned Tribunal awarded Rs.53,000/- as compensation with interest 7.5% per annum. Arguments in the appeal: 7. It is argued for the appellant that the quantum of compensation granted is abnormally low, no rationality is there in awarding compensation particularly quantifying the compensation amount and disability of 20% stated by the competent doctor is ignored and that learned MACT erred in observing that disability certificate from the medical board is not produced. The evidence of PW-2 doctor could have been considered and the learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed for which there is no bar. 8. It is argued for the Respondents that the treatment was given free of cost under Aarogyasri Scheme to the claimant. There is no disability. The quantum of compensation granted by the MACT itself is excessive. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere and enhance the compensation. 9. In the context of the case and in the light of the arguments advanced, the following things are clear: i. The accident is not in dispute. ii. Negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 07W 1882 (offending lorry) is proved in the light of the evidence of P.W.-1 and crime record covered by Ex-A1 and A2. iii. The Respondent Insurance Company has not filed any appeal or cross appeal questioning the negligence quantum or liability. iv. Learned MACT ignored disability of 20% stated by P.W.-2 who is a doctor. 10. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: i. Whether the compensation of Rs.53,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the award dated 30.03.2011 is just and reasonable or whether any enhancement is necessary, if so, on what grounds and what shall be just and reasonable quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the claimant / appellant.? ii. What the result of the appeal? 11. ii. What the result of the appeal? 11. The parameters for awarding the compensation in Motor accident cases are addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , [1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] , Kazal vs Jagdish Chand & others , [2 2020 4 SCC 413 ] and Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another , [32025 AIAR Civil I] . Various heads under which the compensation can be awarded for the personal injuries suffered by the victim in a motor vehicle accident and quantification may vary slightly depending on the context of the case. But, broadly, the heads under which the compensation can be awarded for personal injuries are : A) Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities. (vi) Loss of expectation of life. Analysis of evidence: 12(i). The claimant as PW-1 stated that he has suffered fracture injuries to right thigh, right leg above knee and right knee bleeding injuries to the right leg thumb finger, right knee injury, right fore head, right thigh, left knee below injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. 12(ii). Wound certificate Ex.A3 is disclosing three injuries and that they are grievous injuries in nature. Discharge certificate issued by Sanjivi Orthopaedic & Physiotherapy Centre, Guntur is indicating that the claimant was admitted in hospital on 19.06.2009 and discharged on 29.06.2009. 12(iii). Evidence of PW-2 is that he has examined the claimant and found three injuries and Ex.A3/wound certificate was issued by him. He has stated that for right hip plate fixation was done for tibial condyle fracture, plate and screw fixation was done. He has stated that the patient/claimant was examined prior to giving evidence and he found restriction of right hip joint movements and there is minimal restriction of right knee and ankle movements. Claimant stated difficulty in squatting, sitting with crossed legs and walking for long distances. The disability is 20% as per the Orthopedic Manual. He has stated that the patient/claimant was examined prior to giving evidence and he found restriction of right hip joint movements and there is minimal restriction of right knee and ankle movements. Claimant stated difficulty in squatting, sitting with crossed legs and walking for long distances. The disability is 20% as per the Orthopedic Manual. There are steel plates existing in the body. The PW-2 stated in chief examination itself, that clamant can continue his profession as driver despite his injuries. During cross examination he has stated that entire treatment was given under Arogyasree scheme, the State Government reimbursed all the treatment expenses. Quantification of compensation:- 13(i). In lump sum the learned MACT granted Rs.10,000/- for each fracture without referring to whether it is for pain and suffering or for any other purposes. Learned MACT ought have stated clearly as to under what head the same has been granted. It is relevant to note that the learned MACT has granted Rs.10,000/- separately for pain and suffering. It can be seen from the orders that, the learned MACT has refer to 20% disability spoken by the Doctor and observed that for want of disability certificate from the Medical Board, no amount is granted. Although treatment is given under Aarogyasree Scheme incurring some medical expenditure after discharge etc. cannot be ruled out. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under medical expenditure is fit to be confirmed. The claimant is a driver. Considering the year in which the accident occurred his income can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month and he might have suffered loss of income during the period of treatment till getting well atleast for a period of two months, whereby the loss of income during the treatment can be taken at Rs.12,000/-. Disability of 20% whether it is functional or causes loss of income is not stated. It is relevant to note that P.W.-2 stated that the claimant can continue his profession as a driver. So, disability contributing for loss of income permanently is not proved. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under this head. 13(ii). Taking note of the facts and circumstances, socio economic background from which claimant comes, his profession, hardship the claimant undergone with pain and suffering, trauma, loss of income at least during treatment period etc. the compensation awarded by the learned MACT require enhancement, at following quantums:- Sl. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under this head. 13(ii). Taking note of the facts and circumstances, socio economic background from which claimant comes, his profession, hardship the claimant undergone with pain and suffering, trauma, loss of income at least during treatment period etc. the compensation awarded by the learned MACT require enhancement, at following quantums:- Sl. No. Head Granted by MACT Granted by the Appellate Court 1. a)Pain and suffering b) Fractures &grievous injuries c)Simple Injuries For all the injuries pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- For three fractures @Rs.20,0 00/- each Rs.60,000 /- For three fractures Rs.10,000/- each @ Rs.30,000/- 3. Medical Expenditure Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 4. Future medical expenditure Nil Since Steel Plates are inserted Rs.20,000 /- 5. a) Extra Nourishment Nil Rs.5,000/- b) Attendant Charges Nil Rs.5,000/- c) Transportation charges Nil Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of earnings during treatment etc. Rs.3,000/- For two months @ Rs.6,000/ - per month Rs.12,000 /- 7. Permanent disability Nil Nil 8. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.10,000/- 9. Loss of expectation of life. Nil Nil Total: Rs.53,000/- Rs.1,27,000/- 14. For the reasons stated above, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant concluding that compensation awarded by the learned MACT in a sum of Rs.53,0000/- requires enhancement to Rs.1,27,000/- with interest @ 9% instead of 7.5% awarding by the learned MACT. Point No.2: 15. In the result , the appeal is allowed-in-part, the compensation amount of Rs.53,000/- awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.835 of 2009, is enhanced to Rs.1,27,000/- with interest @9% instead of 7.5% awarded by the learned MACT while maintaining costs awarded as it is. Claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. As Sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.