JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, (FTC)., Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 14.12.2017 at about 19:30 hours, the deceased was going along with his relative by riding his Hero Honda Shine Motor Cycle bearing No.TS-03-JTR-8931 coming towards Pasra and when they were about to reach the bus stop, he saw an unknown vehicle coming from Pasra, and so he had taken his vehicle to a side to stop it, but a Lorry bearing No.Ap-24-U-9931 was parked there negligently without any indicator and without taking any precautions, as such, he hit the parked lorry and fell down on the road along with his relative, as a result he sustained grevious head injury and was immediately shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal and from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, where he was treated as an in patient and was discharged on 27.12.2017, but again he was readmitted on 28.12.2017 and was discharged on 02.01.2018, due to the said injuries, he became permanently disabled. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.25,70,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. They further contended that the petitioner was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred due to his own negligence and that the respondent No.2 is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP-24U-9931 driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 and X2 were marked. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.37,69,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was negligent and thus went and hit against the parked lorry and that ignoring the said fact, the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation to the petitioner. He further argued that in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has further awarded huge amounts under various heads and granted exorbitant compensation to the petitioner. He further argued that there is a delay of (7) days in lodging the FIR and that the Tribunal failed to consider that it is only due to the negligence of the petitioner that the accident occurred and that there is no negligence of the parked lorry and therefore, he prayed to exonerate the insurer from liability. 12. Based on the above submission of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1and charge sheet under EX.A3 reveals that the charge sheet is filed against the lorry driver and the contents of the charge sheet reveal that the lorry was left on the road without any indicators, safety measures and in a negligent manner. 4. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1and charge sheet under EX.A3 reveals that the charge sheet is filed against the lorry driver and the contents of the charge sheet reveal that the lorry was left on the road without any indicators, safety measures and in a negligent manner. It is further mentioned that the injured petitioner and his wife were going on the motor bike towards Pasra, meanwhile, when they reached near Pasra Village at about 19:45 hours, one unknown vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and that due to the shining of the lights of the opposite vehicle, the injured petitioner took aside his vehicle and thus, dashed to the parked lorry bearing No.AP-24U-9931. Thus, it is evident from the record that since the lorry was parked negligently without any indicators and the injured petitioner could not observe the same and went and hit against the parked lorry, as he diverted his vehicle, when he saw an unknown vehicle coming in the opposite direction towards him. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the lorry by its driver and it is held that there is no negligence of the petitioner in the occurrence of the accident. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- b) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too exorbitant and is more than the claim of the petitioners. c) A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., one brain injury and another is the fracture to the mandible. MLC issued by the Yashoda Hospital also reveals the said injuries, along with two more injuries, i.e., laceration of tongue and abrasion on right foot. d) The discharge summary under Ex.A5 discloses that he was admitted on 15.12.2017 and discharged on 27.12.2017, while surgery was conducted on 19.12.2017. It discloses about the details of the treatment given to the petitioner for his injuries and at the time of discharge, he was advised with medication and also for a review after two weeks. d) The discharge summary under Ex.A5 discloses that he was admitted on 15.12.2017 and discharged on 27.12.2017, while surgery was conducted on 19.12.2017. It discloses about the details of the treatment given to the petitioner for his injuries and at the time of discharge, he was advised with medication and also for a review after two weeks. Another discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospital under Ex.A5 reveals that he was again admitted on 28.12.2017 and discharged on 02.01.2018 and the diagnosis in the said discharge summary reveals that the petitioner suffered with severe traumatic brain injury, left temporal contusion, Post ORIF +IMF of facial bones and tracheostomy status. e) It is elicited that the patient underwent surgery earlier, but he was found to have quadriparesis, which was thoroughly evaluated, patient was discharged, but again readmitted. A bunch of X-rays and other diagnostic receipts and medical bills are filed by the petitioner. In view of the injuries sustained by him and the treatment underwent by him. This Court opines that the compensation that can be awarded in the present case is Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. f) He filed medical bills to an extent of Rs.4,78,260/- and Rs.85,696/- towards the inpatient final bills of Yashoda Hospital on two instances, apart from which he also underwent treatment in Guardian Multi Speciality Hospital, and also has filed several medical bills. In addition to the medical expenses, the petitioner might have incurred some amount of expenditure towards extra nourishment, transportation and other incidental expenses. Considering the entire evidence on record and all the additional elements put together the amount awarded towards medical expenses and treatment as Rs.15,00,000/- by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. g) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner was an agriculturist and that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month prior to the accident and that he suffered huge loss of earnings due to the accident. No proof is filed in this regard. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2011) 12 SCC 236] , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. No proof is filed in this regard. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2011) 12 SCC 236] , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2017 and the injured-petitioner stated to have been an agriculturist, thus, his income could not be less than Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas’s case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month which is just and reasonable. h) Considering the period of hospitalization in two spells, and the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner, it is opined that he must have taken atleast six months to recover from the injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is assessed as Rs.6,000 x 6 =36,000/- . i) The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate, but the Tribunal has mentioned in its order that it has referred the petitioner to Government Hospital and obtained a report of his health. The tribunal has further held that considering the medical reports of the MGM Hospital, it has assessed the functional disability of the petitioner as 80%. The Tribunal has discussed about the medical report stated to have been obtained from the MGM Hospital, but it does not form a part of the record. The said report is neither marked nor placed in the file. Thus, nothing is there on record to show the disability sustained by the petitioner so as to assess any loss of future prospects or loss of future earnings. In the absence of any evidence, it is not proper to award compensation towards loss of future earnings. Thus, an amount of Rs.9,79,200/- awarded by the Tribunal towards continuing permanent disability is found to be without any basis. It is also noticed that the compensation that is awarded under the head of attendant charges is also multiplied with the multiplier specified for the age of the petitioner i.e., the attendant charges are assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month and per annum it is taken as Rs.60,000/- and the same is multiplied with ‘17’ and arrived at a compensation of Rs.10,20,000/-, which is also not proper as per the prevailing law. j) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: S.No. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. 1 Compensation under the head ‘injuries, shock, Pain and suffering 2,00,000/- 2 Compensation under the heads hospital, medical transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses 15,00,000/- 3 Compensation for loss of earnings (past six months) (6,000x6) 36,000/- Total 17,36,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- It is found that in view of the findings arrived at Point No.1 and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified, reducing the quantum of compensation. This Court has arrived at a compensation of Rs.17,36,000/-, while the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.37,69,200/-. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.4:- In the result, the MACMA filed by the Insurance Company is allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.37,69,200/- to Rs.17,36,000/- setting aside the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, (FTC)., Warangal and the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.