JUDGMENT: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.11.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.76 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 19.06.2017 at about 09:45 hours, while the petitioner was standing to board the bus, the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP- 29Z-2548 near Golden Cafe, Tadbund X Road, Secunderabad, drove the same in rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous fracture injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital and thereafter to M/s Srikara Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. He incurred huge medical expenditure and he sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte. 5. The respondent No.2-TSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also with regard to the occurrence of the accident. 6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injured of the petitioner due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548 make Ashok Lyeland, Model:2011 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and X1. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.11,11,000/- Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the RTC. 9. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the facts and contrary to law. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,11,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- without any proper reasoning. 9. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the facts and contrary to law. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,11,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- without any proper reasoning. He further argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC bus without any evidence on record. He further argued that the contributory negligence on part of the injured must have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal as the injured tried to board running bus at the time of the accident. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to allow his appeal. 11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:- 1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the petitioner in the occurrence of the accident? 3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 5. To what relief? 12. Point Nos.1 & 2: a) The contention of the appellant is that the petitioner was negligent and that he tried to board a running bus and fell down and thus, sustained grievous injuries and thus, there is no negligence of the RTC driver. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 5. To what relief? 12. Point Nos.1 & 2: a) The contention of the appellant is that the petitioner was negligent and that he tried to board a running bus and fell down and thus, sustained grievous injuries and thus, there is no negligence of the RTC driver. b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveals that the petitioner was waiting at the Golden Point Bus stop and when he saw the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548 coming from Medchal to Secunderabad, he waived his hand to stop the bus and thus the bus driver has slowed down the bus, after that, he boarded the bus from the front door and he put his left leg on the steps and right leg was still outside, the petitioner informed the same to the driver and asked him to stop the bus, but the bus driver did not stop the bus and moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he fell down and his right leg got crushed under the front wheel. PW1 is the injured witness. His evidence reveals that on request of the petitioner, the driver has stopped the bus and without observing that the petitioner has not completely got into the bus, the driver has moved the bus, which resulted in the accident and caused grievous injuries to the petitioner. Therefore, based on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and A2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC driver and that there is no contributory negligence on part of the petitioner. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 13. Point No.3:- c) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident, which occurred due to the negligence of the RTC driver. To prove his injuries he got examined PW2 to 4. PW2/Dr.P. Ramesh is a consultant Plastic Surgeon in M/s Srikara Hospital. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 13. Point No.3:- c) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident, which occurred due to the negligence of the RTC driver. To prove his injuries he got examined PW2 to 4. PW2/Dr.P. Ramesh is a consultant Plastic Surgeon in M/s Srikara Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained crush injury of right foot with evulsions of skin over dorsum of right foot and sole of right foot, all toes including great toe of right foot were hanging and barely attached proximally (traumatic amputation) and that he treated the petitioner for the said injuries and also amputated all the toes of right foot. His evidence further reveals that the petitioner has disfigurement of right foot and that he cannot walk perfectly and cannot run as he lost all the right toes and that petitioner has 45% of permanent physical disability. Ex.A4 is issued by their hospital. d) The evidence of PW4/Dr. Subash Rao, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sri Sai Clinic reveals that he has examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A8/Disability Certificate. His evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained amputation of all the toes on his right foot and suffered with 45% of permanent disability. e) PW3/Mr. P. Vijay Kumar is the Billing Manager of Srikara Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner has paid Rs.70,000/- towards inpatient bill and further received Rs.500/- towards consultation fee and Rs.6,300/- under Bill No.9371 in addition to the inpatient bill of Rs.70,000/-. Ex.A5 is the medical bill issued by their hospital. He further filed Ex.X1 which is the original of the final bill issued by their hospital for Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the treatment underwent by their petitioner at Srikara Hospital is proved with the evidence of PW2 and the bills paid by him are proved by the evidence of PW3. f) PW4 is not a member of District Medical Board, but he has issued the disability certificate on the physical examination of the petitioner and the disability mentioned in Ex.A8 is 45%. Ex.A4 is a set of discharge summaries issued by Srikara Hospital and NIMS. f) PW4 is not a member of District Medical Board, but he has issued the disability certificate on the physical examination of the petitioner and the disability mentioned in Ex.A8 is 45%. Ex.A4 is a set of discharge summaries issued by Srikara Hospital and NIMS. The first discharge summary issued by Srikara Hospital discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 19.06.2017 and was discharged on 23.06.2017 and during the said period, he was treated for his injuries sustained in road traffic accident and that he underwent right foot debridement and disarticulation of toes under spinal anesthesia. He was again admitted on 26.06.2017 and discharged on 04.07.2017, the second discharge summary reveals that he was again admitted on 29.09.2017, discharged on 31.09.2017. g) The evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 coupled with the discharge summaries under Ex.A4, reveal the treatment underwent by the petitioner and Ex.A8 is the disability certificate which discloses that the petitioner sustained 45% of disability which is partial and permanent in nature, as a result of traumatic amputation of all the toes of the right foot. In view of the gravity of injuries sustained by the petitioner which involves lot of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is opined to be reasonable. h) The Tribunal has awarded amounts under different heads i.e., Rs.50,000/- towards discomfort and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Generally the pain and suffering includes all these elements. It is opined that Rs. 1,00,000/ - if awarded towards pain and suffering would be just and reasonable in this case. i) The medical bills are filed to an extent of Rs.1,62,000/- and hence, the same is awarded. j) Considering the entire evidence on record and in addition to the medical expenses, the petitioner might have incurred some additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- of expenditure towards extra nourishment, transportation and other incidental expenses, and all the elements put together the amount awarded towards medical expenses and treatment is arrived at Rs. 2,12,000/- (1,62,000 +50,000). k) The salary certificate is filed under Ex.A6 which shows that the deceased used to work in their establishment and earn a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the employer is not examined. Thus, Ex.A6 is not proved. In the injury certificate he is stated to be aged ‘52’ years, as per Ex.A8/Disability Certificate his age is mentioned as ‘58’ years. Thus, Ex.A6 is not proved. In the injury certificate he is stated to be aged ‘52’ years, as per Ex.A8/Disability Certificate his age is mentioned as ‘58’ years. No other documents is filed in proof of his age. Hence, the same is taken into consideration. The accident occurred in 2017. Thus, he might have been aged between 50-55 years at the time of the accident. He is an able bodied person prior to the accident, he must have been into some avocation and he must have been earning to maintain his family. Thus on a reasonable hypothesis, his income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.8,000/- per month is opined to be just and reasonable. Whether the amputation of toes would hamper his duties as a worker in Dadus Mitai Vaatika is not established. But it must have resulted in discomfort and reduced ability of the petitioner, which cannot be ruled out. l) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , 2011 (10 SCC 343 , 45% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A8 is scaled down to 25% with regard to whole body and the loss of earnings is scaled down to 20%. After adding future prospects of 10% monthly income would be Rs.8,800/- and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.8,800 x12 = 1,05,600 x 20% x 13 which comes up to 2,74,560/-. m) Because he suffered amputation of toes, he must have been out of work for atleast around twelve months. Accordingly, a sum of 96,000/- (8000 x 12) is awarded as compensation towards loss of earnings. n) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: SI.No. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Compensation under the head ‘injuries, shock, Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2. Compensation of loss of earnings (past three months) 96,000/- 3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 2,74,560/- 4. Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 2,12,000/- Total 6,82,560/- o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.6,82,560/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,11,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 2,12,000/- Total 6,82,560/- o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.6,82,560/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.11,11,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.4:- In view of the findings arrived at Point No.3, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.11,11,000 to 6,82,560/-. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.5:- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.11,11,000 to 6,82,560/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the decreetal amount awarded by the Tribunal which is already withdrawn by the respondents herein. Therefore, the balance amount if any, is to be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.