Judgment : (B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.) 1. MACMA 707 of 2005: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 28.10.2004 in MVOP No.1066 of 2002 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein. 2. MACMA No.1318 of 2008: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 28.10.2004 in MVOP No.1066 of 2002 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by the Claimant therein. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same decree and order, a common judgment is pronounced. 4. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short MV Act), seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000,/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. Her case is briefly as follows: 5. On 18.09.1998, at about 4.30 pm, while she was returning from the college to go to Raman Academy, where she was taking special tuition for BCA course, by travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter driven by her father, at the traffic signals, Bandar Road, RTC city bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6474, being driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle from its rear side. As a result, the claimant fell down and the right front tires of the bus ran over her dragging her for a few yards before the bus stopped. Therefore, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over her body. Her father also sustained injuries in the accident. They were shifted to Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic where they were admitted as inpatient. The claimant was, later, shifted to Madras for better and advanced treatment. A case in CC No.38 of 1998 was laid against the 3 rd respondent. The claimant was aged about 21 years and a student. Though the claimant survived the accident, her life became miserable and she underwent a number of surgeries and became permanently disabled so that she cannot walk, sit or sleep as earlier. As the respondent No.3 is an employee of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. 6. The respondent No.1 alone filed written statement denying the claim. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte. As the respondent No.3 is an employee of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. 6. The respondent No.1 alone filed written statement denying the claim. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.1 contented that there was no rash and negligence of the respondent No.3 and that the father of the claimant alone was responsible for the accident and also that the amount claimed is excessive. 7. On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as PW1 and A.V.Gurunadha Rao was examined as PW2 and Dr.G.Bala Krishna was examined as PW3. On behalf of the claimant, Ex.A1 to A27 were filed. On behalf of respondent No.1, P.Srinivasa Rao was examined as RW1 and B.Bala Samudra Rao was examined as RW2, but, no document was filed. 8. After considering the contentions of both parties, in the light of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3 for the claim of Rs.2,95,428/-, the claimant filed medical bills for an amount of Rs.2,17,778/-. Out of Rs.2,95,428/-, 75% would be reimbursed by the employer of the father of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.73,857/- towards compensation for the medical expenses. Similarly, the medical claims and several documents vide Ex.A8, A9, A20 to A27, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to 25% of such amount. Thus, finally an amount of Rs.1,49,452/- was held to be the entitlement under the medical expenses and rounding the figure to Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded the same amount as compensation. 9. With the evidence of the doctor, the claimant could establish that she suffered permanent disability. Though percentage was not ascertained, the Tribunal held that the claimant lost her marital life and career prospects. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- in addition to the compensation for medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Advocate?s fee of Rs.3,000/- was additionally awarded. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, both parties filed the above appeals. 11. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Advocate?s fee of Rs.3,000/- was additionally awarded. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, both parties filed the above appeals. 11. The claimant contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in view of her physical permanent disability and as she underwent 10 surgeries and was hospitalized several times. It is further contended that the claimant who was a young lady, lost her charm of life and became a burden to herself requiring constant lifelong costly treatment and care. 12. On the other hand, the appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the claim petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties who are the owner and insurer of the scooter; that Tribunal erred in believing the evidence of PW2 and disbelieved the evidence of RW1 about the rash and negligence of the person responsible for causing the accident and further that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and not supported by evidence on record and reasons justifying the same. 13. In so far as the rash and negligence of the respondent No.2/RW1 is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and RW1 are oral and on oath. In addition to oral evidence, the evidence of PW1/claimant is supported by the documentary evidence under Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A4/charge sheet. Further, the rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.A3 discloses the manner of the accident as per the observation made at the scene. The report of the motor vehicle inspector under Ex.A2, indicates that there were no mechanical defects to the bus. That apart, the fact that the scooter was hit from behind by the bus speaks itself the manner in which the accident was caused. Though the driver of the bus/RW1 claims that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter, he failed to lodge any complaint narrating the manner of the accident. Thus, except his oral evidence denying his rash and negligence, while attributing rash and negligence of the rider of the scooter, there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate his oral evidence. Thus, except his oral evidence denying his rash and negligence, while attributing rash and negligence of the rider of the scooter, there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate his oral evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 is duly corroborated on material particulars regarding the rash and negligence of RW1. Therefore, there is no ground to contend that the Tribunal committed error on this aspect. For the same reason, there is no need to implead the owner and insurer of the scooter as parties to the claim petition and their non-joinder does not vitiate the claim. 14. In so far as the medical expenses are concerned, after evaluating the evidence on record regarding the total expenditure and the entitlement of reimbursement of the actual expenses by the employer of the father of the claimant, the Tribunal rightly awarded 25% of such proved expenses as compensation. Thus, a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as medical expenses is just and reasonable. 15. The balance amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal in a lump sum amount, without indicating the different heads under which such amount was awarded. Lack of reasons does not enable the appellate Court to appreciate whether or not such amount of compensation is just or not. 16. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 clearly show that the grievous injuries as in detail mentioned in the order of the Tribunal were sustained by the claimant in the accident and that she suffered severe pain and trauma and that she underwent several surgeries for a prolonged period. That apart, she sustained permanent disfigurement and capacity to lead independent life. 17. In any case of permanent disability, it may result in loss of earnings or earning capacity. In each case, independent enquiry shall be held as to the consequences of permanent disability. 18. We can draw inference from para 19 in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] wherein it is held as follows: “19. 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. 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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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.” 19. In so far as compensation for pain and sufferings is concerned, it is not only the physical sufferings, but the petitioner is put to mental sufferings through her life. She underwent several surgeries and undertook prolonged treatment. She is also unable to sit, sleep and do other actions as she suffered injury to entire back portion covering hip, lower limbs, pelvic and gluteal region etc., which were extensively damaged. The Commissioner recorded that there are marks of surgeries on both sides of her private organs, besides other injuries on the entire back side. It was further recorded that the petitioner was laying prostate and skin grafting was done to her buttocks. Such evidence, indicates the condition of the claimant. When the permanent disability resulted in not only temporary pain and sufferings but also similar permanent suffering throughout life. So, she is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, besides disfigurement. Thus, compensation shall be separately awarded under both these heads. Therefore, the claimant can be awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and sufferings, both past and future and Rs.2,00,000/- for disfigurement. 20. Since the claimant was merely a student, her earning capacity can be notionally assessed. So, she is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, besides disfigurement. Thus, compensation shall be separately awarded under both these heads. Therefore, the claimant can be awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and sufferings, both past and future and Rs.2,00,000/- for disfigurement. 20. Since the claimant was merely a student, her earning capacity can be notionally assessed. There is no dispute of the fact that she was a student of BCA course. Her capacity to earn would depend on several factors. As there is no evidence of her excellence in education, her earning capacity cannot be too low or too high. Since the accident occurred in the year 1998 when the quantum of salary was not as high as now, it can be reasonably assessed at Rs.1500/- per month. As she lost opportunity of any employment or making earnings Rs,18,000/- per annum can be taken as her earnings. After considering future prospects and personal expenses, the loss could be calculated by multiplying Rs.18,000/- with multiplier applicable to her age. She was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier 18' can be adopted. Since the disability could be treated as 100% in the present case. Rs.18,000/- multiplied with 18' is equal to Rs.3,24,000/-. Therefore she is entitled to the said amount of compensation towards loss of future earnings. 21. In addition to compensation under all the above heads, she is further entitled to compensation for expenses for transportation, attendants and extra nourishment. In view of the prolonged treatment, she is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.20,000/- for attendants and Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, she is entitled to a total amount of Rs.9,64,000/- towards compensation. As the Tribunal awarded only Rs.9,00,000/-, she is entitled to further amount of Rs.64,000/-. Sl.No Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Medical Expenses Rs.1,50,000/- 2 Pain and Sufferings (Past & Future) Rs.2,00,000/- 3 Disfigurement Rs.2,00,000/- 4 Loss of Future Earnings (Rs.18,000/- X 18) = Rs.3,24,000 5 Transportation Expenses Rs.50,000/- 6 Attendants Rs.20,000/- 7 Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,64,000/- 22. This Court have enhanced the compensation by Rs. 64,000/-, increasing the total amount from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs. 9,64,000/-. 23. As the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time of accident at 9% per annum is just and reasonable, there is no need to interfere with the same. 24. In the result, the appeal in MACMA 707 of 2005 is dismissed. 25. 64,000/-, increasing the total amount from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs. 9,64,000/-. 23. As the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time of accident at 9% per annum is just and reasonable, there is no need to interfere with the same. 24. In the result, the appeal in MACMA 707 of 2005 is dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal in MACMA 1318 of 2008 is partly allowed by enhancing amount of compensation from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.9,64,000/-. The rest of the award is intact. The respondents shall deposit the balance amount as enhanced within two (2) months. Since the accident occurred in the year 1998, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount on deposit. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals shall stand closed.