JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. Vannam Singaraiah, claimant in M.V.O.P.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nandigama, Krishna District [‘for short ‘MACT’], is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.45 of 2015 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [for short APSRTC], the respondent before the learned MACT is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1247 of 2016. 3. Both the appeals are arising out of the decree and order dated 21.10.2014 passed in the same M.V.O.P. The claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation and also questioning the apportionment of liability between the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4287 [hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’], and Two Wheeler/TVS Moped bearing No.AP 16 BP 4211, on which he was travelling as pillion rider and reduction of the compensation amount on that ground. 4. The respondent APSRTC is questioning the quantification of compensation as well as apportionment of negligence @75% on the APSRTC where there is involvement of two vehicles. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as claimant and the respondent as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT, in the impugned proceedings. Case of the claimants, in brief, is that – 6. [i] On 27.05.2011 at about 10 hours, when the clamant was traveling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler i.e., TVS Moped bearing No.AP 16 BP 4211, reached near Dasupalam village, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District, ‘offending vehicle’, came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the bike, causing the accident, due to which the claimant sustained injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. [ii] A case in Crime No.44 of 2011 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. [iii] The claimant was working as a coolie earning Rs.6000/- per month, suffered grievous injuries on right tibia and fibula and right femur, his leg was amputated, he has undergone treatment as inpatient for one month, taken bed rest for six months, incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-, unable to perform his duty as coolie, hence entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 7. Case of the respondent, in brief, is that:- [i] There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 7. Case of the respondent, in brief, is that:- [i] There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Rider of two-wheeler is responsible for the accident; age, occupation, income, disability, etc., pleaded by the petitioner are not correct and they shall be proved strictly. The driver of the bus gave report to the concerned Police and the driver as well as passengers of the bus got the claimant shifted to hospital. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. 8. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.05.2011 at about 10.00 hours, near Dasupalem stage, Vatsavai due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Crime APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4287? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 3) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 9. [i] Claimant has taken witness stand as PW1, stated about the accident, negligence, injury sustained by him, treatment undergone. Doctors, Mr.C.V.Dasaraiah and Dr.M.J.Naidu, who treated the claimant was examined as PW2 and PW3. They stated about the treatment given to the claimant. [ii] On behalf of the respondent, G. Rambabu, driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. [iii] Claimant relied on the documents, Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Wound Certificate issued by Dr. M.J. Naidu. Ex.A3- Chargr Sheet, Ex.A4-Disability Certificate, Ex.A5- Bunch of Medical Bills Rs. 71,051/-, Ex.A6 - Bunch of Medical Bills for Rs.14,255/-, Ex.A7- Bunch of receipts of Blood Bank etc., Ex.A8-Discharge Summary, Ex.A9- X-Ray Film. [iv] No documentary evidence is placed by the respondent. Findings of the learned MACT: 10. [i] Accident is not in dispute. With regard to negligence claimant deposed. Evidence of RW1, the driver of the RTC bus is also there. Both vehicles were coming in opposite direction. MVI report is not filed. The rider of the motor cycle TVS Moped did not blow the horn. Charge sheet is filed as if driver of the RTC bus alone is at fault. It is not the case of the rider of the TVS Moped that he has taken extremely left and bus has hit. The rider of the Moped was not examined. The rider of the motor cycle TVS Moped did not blow the horn. Charge sheet is filed as if driver of the RTC bus alone is at fault. It is not the case of the rider of the TVS Moped that he has taken extremely left and bus has hit. The rider of the Moped was not examined. The rider of the Moped, though sustained injuries did not choose to file any M.V.O.P. claiming compensation. Therefore, 25% of the negligence can be attributed to the rider of the Moped. [ii] Disability is shown @ 85% under Ex.A4, whereas the disability is stated at 70%. Since there is amputation, one cannot state that the claimant could not work as how he was working earlier. Medical bills are around Rs.87,906/-. But claim is made for Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of medical expenditure. Claimant is entitled for compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity. [iii] The petitioner was shifted to hospital in 109 ambulance. Therefore, not entitled for anything for transportation. His income can be taken at Rs.3000/- per month. The claimant suffered one grievous injury. Therefore, he is entitled for Rs.15,000/-. The claimant is entitled for medical expenditure at Rs.87,906/-. [iv] In total, he is entitled for Rs.3,02,906/-. (Medical bills Rs.87,906/- + Rs.15,000/- for grievous injury, pain and suffering+ Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of income). However, 25% of the liability is to be apportioned to the rider of the TVS Moped. Therefore, the respondent- APSRTC is liable to pay Rs. 2,27,180/- only. Arguments advanced in the appeal for the Claimant:- 11. [i] Apportionment of negligence @ 25% and 75% is incorrect. The compensation should have been granted under all heads and quantification is vague and liability of APSRTC shall be to the full extent. [ii] The Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to the claimant. Arguments advanced for the Respondent -APSRTC:- 12. When the learned MACT found that there is negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, the apportionment should have been at the rate of 50% each among the two vehicles. Taking of income at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month and calculation of compensation are baseless. The disability is not properly taken into consideration and the quantum of compensation claimed and granted are excessive. 13. Perused the record. 14. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. Taking of income at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month and calculation of compensation are baseless. The disability is not properly taken into consideration and the quantum of compensation claimed and granted are excessive. 13. Perused the record. 14. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 27.05.2011 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 4287/ offending vehicle? 2) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of rider of the TVS Moped bearing No.AP 16 BP 4211? If so whether the same extends to claimant? 3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? and what is the liability of the respondent- APSRTC? 4) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.45 of 2015? 5) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1247 of 2016? Point Nos.1 and 2:- Both the points are interlinked. Hence, answered together. Analysis of evidence: 15. Claimant as PW1, being an eyewitness to the accident, deposed in clear terms about the accident that the driver of the bus came in a high-speed, rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, lost control and dashed the bike. Resultantly, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Case is registered by Police. 16. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that driver of RTC bus gave report and FIR is registered basing on such report. The claimant denied the suggestion that he is responsible for the accident and that rider of TVS moped is negligent. He has also denied the suggestion that by influencing the Police, FIR was manipulated as if driver of RTC bus was negligent. 17. RW1 is the driver of the bus. He has stated in chief examination that when the bus reached outskirts of Dasupalem village, one TVS moped rider along with pillion rider came in a rash and negligent manner and fell down on the road and bus did not touch the Moped. During the cross-examination, he has stated that there are curves in between Ramachandrapuram to Jaggaiahpet road, the accident has occurred at turning. The pillion rider of Moped sustained severe injury and he was shifted to hospital. Police filed charges against RW1. During the cross-examination, he has stated that there are curves in between Ramachandrapuram to Jaggaiahpet road, the accident has occurred at turning. The pillion rider of Moped sustained severe injury and he was shifted to hospital. Police filed charges against RW1. He has denied the suggestion that his negligent driving is the cause of the accident. 18. If the version the respondent-APSRTC bus is to be accepted that the bus did not touch the Moped and that the Moped fell on the road on its own, due to the negligence of the rider of the Moped, causing of crush injury, leading to amputation of the leg, how occasioned is a big question?. So, the theory of bus not touching the TVS Moped appears improbable in the circumstances of the case. The respondent RTC should have taken further steps like summoning any other witness or placing any material like MVI report etc., to vindicate its stand. Burden to prove the negligence prima facie on the part of the claimant can be considered as discharged on the strength of the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the RTC bus. 19. The objection of the respondent-RTC is that the rider of the Moped should have been examined. PW-1, injured claimant is a competent witness. What prevented the respondent in summoning rider of the Moped is not even whispered. It is not the quantum of evidence. It is the quality of evidence that matters. 20. The argument of the appellant that non-examination of the rider of the Moped by the claimant is a defect and that absence of claim by the rider, who said to have sustained injuries in the same accident, is a corroborative aspect, to believe that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the Moped, found fit to be ignored. It is a choice of the person to make a claim or not to make a claim. Merely because of rider of motorcycle or one of several victims in an accident does not make a claim, such conduct cannot be ipso dixit, to doubt or discard or ignore the positive evidence on record and the claims of other victims. The argument that the rider of the Moped did not possess the driving license and hence he did not make the claim is also an imagination. The argument that the rider of the Moped did not possess the driving license and hence he did not make the claim is also an imagination. Such kind of conjecture projected on behalf of the respondent-RTC, owner of the offending vehicle found not tenable, when seen through legal and logical lens. 21. The observation and appreciation of the learned MACT that the absence of claim by the rider of the motorcycle creates some doubt and as both the vehicles were coming in opposite direction, contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle is to be taken into account, cannot be appreciated. 22. Learned MACT lost sight of the distinction between a ‘contributory negligence’ and ‘composite negligence’. Where there is a claim for compensation by the party to the negligence either wholly or in part, the doctrine of contributory negligence and restriction of entitlement or liability, taking note of contributory negligence, is possible and permissible. But where the claimant is a victim and not a party to the negligence, even if the rider or driver of the vehicle in which such victim is travelling has been a party to some sort of negligence, extension of the negligence of the driver of such vehicle, in respect of the claim of the victim is not correct, particularly when such victim can have no control on driving or contribution of negligence by the driver of the vehicle in which he is travelling. 23. [i] The legal position regarding the distinction between Composite and Contributory negligence is addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another v. K.Hemlatha and others, (2008) 6 SCC 767 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the another judgment of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748 observed at para No.13 as under: “13. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned.” 14. “6. ‘Composite negligence’ refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is, his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of ‘composite negligence’ will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50 : 50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error. The above position was highlighted in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan [ (2008) 3 SCC 748 ], SCC pp. 750-51, paras 6-7” [ii] It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare, nature of legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view in the facts and circumstances. It is sufficient that there is probability, the principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent.Reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: 1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz andanother, 2013 (10) SCC 946. 2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta, 2011 (10) SCC 509 . 4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 24. In the present case, the victim/ claimant, being the pillion rider and has no negligence on his part. 2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta, 2011 (10) SCC 509 . 4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 24. In the present case, the victim/ claimant, being the pillion rider and has no negligence on his part. It is a case of ‘composite negligence’ as far as the claimant is concerned and he is entitled for compensation against both, or either of the parties to negligence. Each one of the tortfeasors for the tort of negligence is accountable to full tune and full extent. Then the question that would arise is what is the remedy for only one, who is made liable, and whether law permits exoneration of the other party to the negligence? Then, the doctrines of Subrogation and Contribution are the legal remedies open for such party to the negligence, who is fastened with entire liability. He may proceed against the other contributor to the negligence, if he is so advised. So the remedy if any for the APSRTC against the rider of the Moped is elsewhere, on invocation of legal doctrines of Subrogation and Contribution. What prevented the APSRTC from getting impleadment of the owner and rider of the Moped is not known. Taking the defence of non-joinder of necessary party is no doubt a factor, require answer. In every case of defence of non-joinder of necessary party, the same does not lead to dismissal of the case. Order 1 Rule-IX of CPC, which reads as follows:- “9. Misjoinder and non-joinder.— No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.” 25. The objection of non-joinder may extend to non-joinder of necessary party but not to proper party. In the present case, the relief is open to the claimant against any or all the tort-feasors of the composite negligence. It is not the case of non-joinder of necessary party to invoke the doctrine of non-severability, and to dismiss the claim. Therefore, this Court finds that the objection of the APSRTC is not tenable. In the present case, the relief is open to the claimant against any or all the tort-feasors of the composite negligence. It is not the case of non-joinder of necessary party to invoke the doctrine of non-severability, and to dismiss the claim. Therefore, this Court finds that the objection of the APSRTC is not tenable. Even otherwise, making any comment as to the contribution of negligence by the rider of the motor cycle, its owner, Insurance Company if any, is not possible without making them as parties. Any observations made in that aspect herein shall not be binding on them, as they are not parties and principles of natural justice does not permit making any observation against them in that regard in their absence. Since Police charge sheeted the driver of the RTC bus, there is evidence of PW.1 against driver of offending vehicle, and there is no convincing evidence to believe the contribution of negligence by the rider of the Moped. Therefore, the negligence the driver of the RTC bus in toto is accepted and finding of the learned MACT, apportioning the negligence at 75% and 25% among the rider of the Moped and driver of the RTC bus, are found not sustainable. 26. In the light of the discussions made, reasons assigned and legal position covered in the judgments cited supra, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the APSRTC and in favour of the claimant accordingly, concluding that the accident pleaded has occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus. Quantum:- Precedential Guidance:- 27. [i] With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. , [2025 AIAR (Civil) 1] , arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In Rs.) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. 2020 (04) SCC 413, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In Rs.) 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4. Future Treatment xxxxx 5. Attendant Charges xxxxx 6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx Total Rs. …xxxxxx (ii) A reference to parameters for quantifying the compensation under various heads addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (a) Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2010 (10) SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud , [ 2007 (14) SCC 61 ] ,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, 1992 (2) SCC 567 as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale in para 17 observed that :- “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (b) In Rajkumar Vs. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.” (b) In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 vide para No.19, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- “…We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors…” (c) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., 2 023 (3) SCC 439 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (d) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 . From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 28. The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the process of redressal and reparation should focus on providing adequate compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims for compensation from victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation. 29. Depending on the context of the case, the quantum and the heads under which compensation can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the heads under which the compensation is awarded in 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:- 30. [i] Claimant has referred in claim statement that he suffered right leg, amputation and sustained injuries on head and all over the body. (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:- 30. [i] Claimant has referred in claim statement that he suffered right leg, amputation and sustained injuries on head and all over the body. Wound Certificate-Ex.A2, is reflecting following injuries: a)Crush injury right leg b)commuted fracture fibula and right femur [ii] The discharge summary Ex.A8 is reflecting as follows: DIAGNOSIS: Post Operative case of above knee Amputation Right. History of clinically examination : Discharging sinus 1 x 1 cm Condition at the time of discharge : stable Date of follow up: Review after 20 days.” Oral Evidence: 31. [i] The claimant as PW.1 stated that he was working as coolie, earning Rs.6000/- per month, hale and healthy at the time of accident, suffered grievous injuries in the accident on his right leg. He was shifted to M.J. Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. His right leg was removed and he incurred expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- etc., took bed rest for more than 06 months, lost earnings, not in a position to move right leg, got permanent disability, unable to attend coolie work and his disability is assessed at 85%. [ii] During the cross examination, nothing important is elicited to doubt the disability etc., Expenditure incurred by the claimant, his age, occupation and income claimed were not even disputed by at least with suggestion theory. [iii] PW.2, Dr.C.V. Dasaraiah stated that he is member of Medical Board, Krishna District. On 19.10.2012 he has examined the claimant i.e., V.Singaraiah, observed post Tramatic Amputation of right lower limb. The disability is assessed @85% and the same is permanent in nature. He has confirmed his signature on Ex.A4-Disability Certificate. [iv] During the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that measurement of amputation was not done as to what level the amputation is done, the disability mentioned as exaggerated, but disability Certificate is issued for the Welfare Schemes, and not for medico legal and insurance purpose. He has denied the suggestion that the claimant is not suffering any disability. Giving such suggestions when the disability is a glaring like amputation, sometimes surprises the bench, but the conventional approach of litigating parties disputing everything. He has denied the suggestion that the claimant is not suffering any disability. Giving such suggestions when the disability is a glaring like amputation, sometimes surprises the bench, but the conventional approach of litigating parties disputing everything. [v] The evidence of PW.3, Dr.M.J.Naidu is that the claimant-Singaraiah was admitted in hospital, on 28.05.2011 and discharged on 09.06.2011. The claimant suffered crush injury, operation was conducted and amputation of right leg was done. Ex.A2 is wound certificate issued by his hospital, Ex.A5, bunch of (29) medical bills, including total Bill was given by his hospital. Ex.A6 and A7 are also medical bills and medicines prescribed for the petitioner/claimant. Ex.A8 is Discharge Summary and Ex.A9 is x-ray film taken at his hospital. [vi] During the cross examination, it was suggested that the claimant was not referred from Government Hospital to his hospital. PW.3 has denied the suggestion that bills are exaggerated to help the claimant and evidence of PW.3 is aimed to help the claimant and that his evidence as to claimant incurring expenditure of Rs.71,000/- is incorrect. 32. From the above evidence on record, following aspects are clear: 1) Claimant suffered injuries in Motor Vehicle Accident. 2) Claimants suffered amputation of Right Leg. 3) Medical Bills covered by Ex.A5 are standing for Rs.71,051/- and Ex.A6, standing for Rs.14,255/-. 4) The claimant was a coolie, aged about 36 years and claimed that he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. 5) Learned MACT while quantifying the compensation, for loss of earning @Rs.2,00,000/- did not adopt any rationality. Therefore, there is need to award compensation to the claimant under other heads contemplated. 33. In the light of the nature of injuries and shifting of the claimant from one Hospital to another, claimant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. 34. Learned MACT taken Rs.3,000/- as income but did not add future prospects, if the same is taken and around 30% is added considering the nature of the employment and age of the claimant, his income will come to Rs.4,000/- per month. 80% of the same comes to Rs.3,200/-. Even if the exaggerations etc., pleaded by the Insurance Company is taken into consideration, the disability can be taken at 75%, whereby the loss of income comes to Rs.3000/- per month and the same will comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. 35. 80% of the same comes to Rs.3,200/-. Even if the exaggerations etc., pleaded by the Insurance Company is taken into consideration, the disability can be taken at 75%, whereby the loss of income comes to Rs.3000/- per month and the same will comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. 35. For the age group of ‘37’ the multiplier applicable is ‘15’, if the same is applied, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation comes to [Rs.36,000/- +17] Rs.5,40,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity due to disability. Period of hosptialisation, total loss of income can be taken for at least 05 months, whereby the entitlement of claimant comes to Rs.15,000/- under the head of total loss of income. 36. The entitlement of the claimant for compensation under the head of pain and suffering is Rs.15,000/-. There is no evidence about necessity of future treatment etc., therefore, no amount need be granted. The entitlement of the claimant for compensation under the head of attendant charges is at Rs.15,000/- and under the loss of amenities of life at Rs.25,000/-. The entitlement of the claimant for compensation under the head of Transport charges is at Rs, 15,000/-, for extra nourishment etc., at Rs.15,000/-. 37. In view of discussions made above and in the light of evidence and precedential guidance referred supra, the entitlement of claimant for compensation under various heads is as follows: Sl. No Head Granted by MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Medical Expenditure Rs.87,906 /- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Loss of earnings due to disability Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.5,40,000/- 3. Loss of income during treatment Nil Rs.15,000/- [Rs.3000 x 5M] 4. Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Future medical expenditure Nil Nil 6. a)Extra Nourishment Nil Rs.15,000/- b)Attendant Charges Nil Rs.15,000/- c)Transportation charges Nil Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Nil Rs.25,000/- Total: Rs . 3,02,906/- Rs.07,40,000 /- 38. For the reasons stated above, point No.3 is answered concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,40,000/-. The respondent APSRTC is liable to pay the entire amount, but not 75% as ordered by the learned MACT and that contrary observations under the impugned decree and award are not sustainable to that extent. 39. 3,02,906/- Rs.07,40,000 /- 38. For the reasons stated above, point No.3 is answered concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,40,000/-. The respondent APSRTC is liable to pay the entire amount, but not 75% as ordered by the learned MACT and that contrary observations under the impugned decree and award are not sustainable to that extent. 39. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:- The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by superior Courts holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just”compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors., 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .” 40. Points No.4 and 5: In the result, [i] the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.45 of 2015 filed by the claimant is allowed. [ii] The appeal in the M.A.C.M.A. No.1247 of 2016 filed by the respondent APSRTC is dismissed. [iii] The Decree and Award dated 21.10.2014 are modified as follows: A) The claimant is entitled for an amount of compensation of Rs.7,40,000 /- with interest @7.5% p.a., B) The respondent-APSRTC in M.V.O.P.No.138 of 2013 and the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1247 of 2016 shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. C) Claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount at once, on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.