JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.634 is filed by the claimant, while MACMA.No.740 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, which arise out of an Order and Decree dated 26.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.338 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (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 claimants before the Tribunal is that on 31.01.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., the petitioner along with labourers went to Kalavapally of Kompakorly and that after loading, they were returning from Kalavapally in order to go to Namathplly Village, and on the way the petitioner was driving the said tractor and trailer at a normal speed, and when they reached Thurkapuram cross roads of Bhongir town, one car bearing No.AP- 29-Q-9992 coming from Bhongir side towards Nalgonda driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed a Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 coming in opposite direction and later the said car driver lost control of the said car and dashed the petitioners tractor trailer from behind, as a result of which the said tractor trailer turned turtle, due to which the petitioner and labour travelling in the said tractor, sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Thus, he was shifted to the Kakatiya Hospital at Uppal and later on he was shifted to NIMS, Panjagutta and underwent treatment and incurred huge medical expenses. He therefore, filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further denied the involvement of Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992, it has also disputed the treatment underwent by the petitioner and his medical expenses. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the road accident occurred on 31.01.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., near Thurkapuram cross roads of Nalgonda road of Bhongir town outskirts due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, from which and to what amount? 3. To what relief & costs ? 7. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, from which and to what amount? 3. To what relief & costs ? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A10, C1 and C2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 and R2 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,84,640,/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.634 of 2021 while the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.740 of 2021. 9. Heard the submission of Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.634 of 2021 and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.740 of 2021. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.634 of 2021 has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider all the documents filed by the petitioner and that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, fracture to the left hand, left leg and right hip joint and that the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the petitioner got permanently disabled and the Tribunal failed to consider the said disability. Learned counsel has further argued that the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.8,000/- and also that while awarding the compensation for future prospects, the Tribunal has added only 25% and also that it has awarded very low amount for medical bills. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. The learned appellant counsel in MACMA.No.734 of 2021 appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on part of the three vehicles and has not fixed the liability against the driver and owner of Qualis and tractor trailer. He further argued that, though the case is filed for seeking compensation for injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as if it is a death case. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded compensation for permanent disability without any documentary proof and that the respondent No.1 was treated under Aarogya Sri Scheme and thus, might not have incurred any medical expenses, while the Tribunal has awarded excess amount towards medical expenses. 12. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded compensation for permanent disability without any documentary proof and that the respondent No.1 was treated under Aarogya Sri Scheme and thus, might not have incurred any medical expenses, while the Tribunal has awarded excess amount towards medical expenses. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether there is any rash and negligence of the driver of Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 in the occurrence of accident ? If so, whether any liability has to be fixed on the owner and driver of Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 5. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) A perusal of Ex.A3/Charge Sheet reveals that the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 is the accused person in this case. While the petitioner was returning along with labourers from Bhongir, the accused driver has driven his car at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Qualis bearing No. AP-09-L- 8813 in an opposite direction and then he hit the tractor of the petitioner, as a result of which the tractor turned turtle. b) It is asserted by PW1 that while he was driving his tractor from Bhongir to Nalgonda, the car bearing No.Ap-29-Q-9992 driven by its driver at a high speed has hit the Qualis in the opposite direction and then it has hit the tractor. The contents of the charge sheet also reveal the said fact and it is filed against the accused- driver of the Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 after thorough investigation by the Police. Hence, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of car who is respondent No.1 in the OP. Thus, the driver, owner and insurer of the said car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 are held to be liable in this case and the question of fixing liability on the owner and driver of Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 does not arise. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Thus, the driver, owner and insurer of the said car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 are held to be liable in this case and the question of fixing liability on the owner and driver of Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 does not arise. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- a) The petitioner and others were shifted to Kakatiya Hospital at Uppal and later on he was shifted to NIMS, Panjagutta and was admitted as inpatient on 08.02.2016 and that he underwent surgery of right Upper Ulna, and was discharged on 09.02.2016 as per Ex.A5. Subsequently, he has taken treatment as outpatient for a long period of time and also underwent physiotherapy and follow up treatment. b) A perusal of Ex.A4/Injury Certificate dated 31.01.2016 issued by Government Hospital, Bhongir reveals that the petitioner sustained fracture to right hand, abrasion on left leg and waist, thus sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. He was admitted in NIMS Hospital for two days and was treated for his fracture of right Ulna. He has also filed the outpatient record under Ex.A6, thus revealing his treatment in Nizam Hospital for a considerable period of time as an outpatient. The outpatient record reveals that he took outpatient treatment from 03.02.2016 at Nizam Hospital till he was admitted as inpatient on 08.02.2016. c) He filed few bills issued by the NIMS Hospital to an extent of Rs.14,640/-. He has also filed the Ex.A9/Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, his age is disclosed as ‘39’ years in Ex.A9 and his disability is assessed as 30% to the right fore arm. d) The record reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 22.02.2016 and discharged on 01.03.2016. Thus, it reveals that he has sustained fracture injury and has also undergone inpatient treatment. Considering the evidence on record, it is held that an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. e) The injured-petitioner is stated to be the owner-cum-driver of tractor and trailer bearing NAP-24-AA-4105 and AP-24-AA-4106 and that he used to run the said tractor trailer for transporting goods in Bhongir Locality and thus, he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident. f) Ex.A8 is the Photo copy of his driving license and this was marked on perusal of the original driving license, by the Tribunal. f) Ex.A8 is the Photo copy of his driving license and this was marked on perusal of the original driving license, by the Tribunal. Ex.A8 reveals that he holds a valid driving license from 01.04.2013 to 23.12.2023 for driving tractor and trailer transport vehicle. For driving non-transport vehicles, Ex.A8 is valid till 23.12.2023 and for transport vehicle the validity is till 31.03.2016. The date of accident is 31.01.2016. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner was holding a valid driving license to drive the tractor-trailer as on the date of the accident and his contention that he used to run the tractor-trailer for transportation of goods and other items in and around Bhongir appears to be true. g) Considering the said facts and evidence adduced on record, it is opined that he must have been earning around Rs.8,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal on a reasonable hypothesis. h) It is borne out by record that he underwent treatment for almost one month as in patient and he was roaming around the hospitals for undergoing further treatment. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, he must have taken another two months to recover from the injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is awarded for three months i.e., Rs.8,000 x 3 = 24,000/-. i) The petitioner has filed medical bills to an extent of Rs.15,000/- , in addition to it some amount of expenditure towards transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses cannot be ruled out. An additional amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded which is rounded up to Rs.50,000/- towards additional expenses as well as medical expenses. j) The principles laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , [2011 (10 SCC 343] are followed with regard to the assessment for loss of earnings in case of permanent disability. The petitioner has filed Disability Certificate under Ex.A8 showing that he has sustained 38% disability to right forearm, which has to be scaled down to the whole body and then to the loss of earning capacity. Since, he is a driver, injury to right fore arm may result in lowering his capacity to drive effectively in future. The learned appellant counsel has argued that due to the said injury, the petitioner is not able to drive the vehicle and that he has lost his source of income as a driver of tractor-trailer. Since, he is a driver, injury to right fore arm may result in lowering his capacity to drive effectively in future. The learned appellant counsel has argued that due to the said injury, the petitioner is not able to drive the vehicle and that he has lost his source of income as a driver of tractor-trailer. Considering the fact that he was a driver of the transport vehicle and that he was transporting goods on the tractor-trailer, it is opined that 30% of disability is scaled down to 15% to whole body. However, he is a driver and he has got impairment in his hand which would impair his driving skills. Hence, 30% of loss of earning capacity is taken into consideration. His monthly income is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month. Adding 40% future prospects would given Rs.11,200/- per month (Rs.8,000 + 3,200) which comes up to 1,34,400 (11,200 x 12) per annum. Then loss of future earnings would be Rs.6,04,800/- (1,34,400 x 30/100 x multiplier ‘15’) k) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.7,28,800/-, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,84,640/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2:- It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to 7,28,800/- from that of Rs.4,84,640/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, MACMA.No.740 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and MACMA.No.634 of 2021 filed by the claimant is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 26.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.338 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the compensation from 4,84,840/- to 7,28,800 and the enhanced amount of 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. Respondent No.1 to 3 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. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.1 to 3 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 appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.