JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Appeal assails the correctness of the Judgment and Award passed by the III Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Karimnagar in MVOP No.899 of 2012, dated 17.01.2019. 2.1. It is contended in the claim petition that on 05.05.2005 in the late hours, the petitioner and his friend by name Krishna were going towards Kaman at Karimnagar on TVS Victor bearing No.AP-15-N-816 driven by the petitioner, when they reached opposite to Kalabharathi at about 12.30 night, respondent No.1 was driving Bajaj Auto Trolley/pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 with load of vegetables in high speed. The driver of the Bajaj Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner due to which he fell down on the road. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar from there to Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences and operation was conducted by two Doctors on right thigh and external fixtures were fixed, he was discharged on 23.05.2005. Petitioner was again admitted in the said Hospital on 01.07.2005, underwent another operation and external fixtures were removed and plaster of paris was applied for 45 days to his right leg, he was discharged on 04.07.2005. After six weeks, the plaster of paris was removed and Doctors advised the petitioner for further bed rest. 2.2. Petitioner took bed rest for one year, he suffered knee stiffness due to fracture of right leg and moved with a walker and he also took treatment at KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad as out-patient. The petitioner was hale and healthy and unmarried prior to the accident, aged about 25 years, he was active in business by running a Tea stall and Bakery and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the fracture of his right leg, he was unable to bend his leg and his movements became stiff and his leg is shortened. The injury resulted permanent disability of 60% in the right knee which is certified by the Medical Board. Petitioner has to undergo operation for skin grafting and it requires Rs.50,000/-, surgery for removal of implants which requires Rs.30,000/-. In total the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 is set ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petitioner. Respondent No.1 was driving his vehicle in a normal speed and was on the left side. In total the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 is set ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petitioner. Respondent No.1 was driving his vehicle in a normal speed and was on the left side. The rider of the motor-cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto and there is no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is having valid driving license and respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the accident might have taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the TVS Victor as there was no collusion between the two vehicles, the compensation if granted may be restricted to the extent of negligence on the part of the Auto Trolley pick up Van. The owner of the vehicle has not informed respondent No.3 about the accident. The compensation claimed is high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues : 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending motor vehicle i.e., Bajaj Auto trolley/Pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? 3. To What relief? 7. Claimant is examined as PW.1, also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 are examined, Exs.B1 and B2 are marked. 8. The Trial Court after conclusion of the evidence has allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.1 to 3 granting compensation of Rs.3,69,540/- (Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges + Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.52,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income for 3 1/2 months +Rs.2,57,040/- towards permanent partial disability). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation to the appellant and did not consider the fact that the appellant has sustained injuries and suffered 60% disability and the permanent disability to the tune of 60% and he lost his total earnings. The Tribunal ought to have taken 100% disability and wrongly applied the multiplier as ‘17’ instead of ‘15’. The Tribunal ought to have taken 100% disability and wrongly applied the multiplier as ‘17’ instead of ‘15’. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month, which ought to have taken the income at Rs.5,000/- as pleaded and awarded less amount for partial loss of earning as the appellant has undergone treatment for one year. The Tribunal has taken the age of the appellant as 30 years and as per the Secondary School certificate his age is 32 years and relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. , 2011 (13) SCC 236 , (2) Pappu deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others , (2022) 13 SCC 790 . 10. Notice to respondent No.1 is served but he failed to appear. 11. No argument is advanced by respondent No.2. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that accident has taken place in the year 2005 and the Tribunal has rightly arrived that the income of the appellant is Rs.3,000/- and the disability is also taken as 30% which is correct, in support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case of T.J.Parameshwarappa Vs. The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited and Others , (2022) 17 SCC 51 . 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 14. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, if so, does it require any modification? 15. Accident has taken place on 05.05.2005, as per the evidence of the claimant he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running a Tea stall and a Bakery. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month. In Ramachandrappa’s case, the Apex Court has taken the income of the coolie as Rs.4,500/-. This Court is of the view that by running a Tea stall, appellant will be earning at least Rs.4,000/- per month but the Tribunal has roughly fixed the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/-. 16. PW.2 is Deputy Medical Superintendant of Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar and he gave evidence that the appellant was treated in the Hospital and surgeries were done, patient was bed ridden from 05.05.2005 to 04.07.2005. 16. PW.2 is Deputy Medical Superintendant of Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar and he gave evidence that the appellant was treated in the Hospital and surgeries were done, patient was bed ridden from 05.05.2005 to 04.07.2005. Patient was advised to take bed rest for one and half month after discharge i.e., 04.07.2005. 17. PW.3 worked as the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Karimnagar, he deposed that he examined the appellant, who is suffering from postraumatic stiffness of right knee and right hip with shortening of right lower limb i.e., there may be shortening about the knee or below the knee and his disability was decided as 60% as it is permanent partial disability and he issued Ex.A11 certificate. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it is mentioned in Ex.A11 that it is not valid for judicial purpose and he examined the petitioner in the Medical camp in which several patients have attended, he did not obtain any X-Ray and he admitted that there is no amputation to the right leg of the petitioner and he can attend to any work that can be done by a person by sitting in a chair. Witness adds that he cannot do it completely as a normal person. 18. The Apex Court in Pappu Deo’s case, observed that the Court should not adopt a stereo typical or myopic approach while assessing the disability. 19. In T.J.Parameshwarappa’s case, the Apex Court has laid down the parameters for assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 20. PW.3 who issued Ex.A11 certificate admitted that it is not helpful for judicial purpose as the appellant was suffering from postraumatic stiffness of right knee and right hip with shortening of right lower limb. The Tribunal having considered the evidence of PW.3 coupled with Ex.A11 has rightly assessed the percentage of disability of the appellant at 30% which is appropriate and correct to arrive at a just compensation. Age of the appellant is mentioned as 30 years in the claim petition and the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’. 21. The determination of compensation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly Income Rs.4,000/ - 2. A dd 40% future prospect s as per Pranay Set hi’s case Rs.5,600/ - (40% of 4,000 = 1,600 + 4,000) 3. Annual income Rs.67,200/ - (5,600 x 12) 4. 21. The determination of compensation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly Income Rs.4,000/ - 2. A dd 40% future prospect s as per Pranay Set hi’s case Rs.5,600/ - (40% of 4,000 = 1,600 + 4,000) 3. Annual income Rs.67,200/ - (5,600 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘17’ as per Sarla Varm a’s case Rs.11,42,400/ - (67,200 x 17) 5. F or Disability Rs.3,42,720/ - (11,42,400 x 30% ) 6. Loss of income for a period of 3½ months @ Rs.4,000/ - p.m . Rs.14,000/ - 7. Transport at ion charges Rs.10,000/ - 8. Medical Expenses Rs.52,000/ - 9. Pain and Suffering R s.40,000/ - 10. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/ - 11. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/ - Total Rs.4,78,720 / - 22. The above said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 23. The Appeal is allowed in Part. 1. The impugned award dated 17.01.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2012 by the III Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Karimnagar stands modified. 2. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,69,540/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,78,720/- together with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing claim petition till payment. 3. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. 4. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.