JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in MVOP.No. 734 of 2017 dated 06.09.2021. 2.1 The facts in the OP are that the appellant/claimant was going slowly on left side of the road on his motorcycle bearing No. AP-23-AN-9166 from Gowlidoddi to ICICI Bank to attend his duty on 23.12.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., when he reached near Wipro circle signal at that time a car bearing No. AP-09-TV-9125 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the appellant/claimant in which he sustained fracture of D12 vertebra, fracture of left transverse process of D12, fracture of left 12 th rib, fracture anterior L4 and L5, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Rajitha Hospital, Gachibowli and later on took treatment at Tilak Nagar Hospital and he is still undergoing treatment. 2.2 The appellant/claimant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and was healthy, earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing housekeeping job and used to look after his family. By the date of petition he was not doing any job due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and prayed to award Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the accident and also raised several contentions and also pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and driver of the motor cycle and that the compensation claimed by the appellant/claimant is excessive, prayed for dismissal. 4. Appellant is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3 RW1 is examined, Exs.B1 to B3 are marked. 5.1. The Tribunal based on the evidence led by the parties has awarded the following compensation. 4. Appellant is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3 RW1 is examined, Exs.B1 to B3 are marked. 5.1. The Tribunal based on the evidence led by the parties has awarded the following compensation. Head of payment Amount fracture of D12 vertebra Rs.1,00,000/- fracture of left transverse process of D12 Rs.1,00,000/- fracture of left 12th rib Rs.1,00,000/- fracture of left ankle Rs.1,00,000/- Extra nourishment Rs.50,000/- Transportation charges Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation payable Rs.5,50,000/- 5.2 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, out of which appellant/claimant was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest on the entire amount and costs and Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in a Nationalized Bank for a period of two years in the interest generating fixed deposit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability and loss of earning capacity of the appellant and the evidence of PW2 is not taken into consideration at proper prospective and also failed to award loss of earning, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards pain and suffering though the appellant has claimed Rs.40,000/-, which is just and reasonable and also failed to award damages towards clothing and articles and failed to apply the multiplier method towards continuing or permanent disability, the Tribunal has failed to consider the loss of earnings. In support of his contention, has relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Syed Saleem vs. Abdul Shukur and another, (2007) 1 ALD 382 (ii) Y. Devendar Goud Vs. S.Papaiah and another, MACMA.No.1475 of 2011, dated 08.09.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at (iii) J. Santosh Reddy @ Santosh Vs. P.Narsimha and another , MACMA.No.1475 of 2011, dated 08.09.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at [Hyderabad] 7. The appellant has enhanced the claim from Rs.9,00,000/- to 14,15,000/- which was allowed by this Court vide I.A.No.2 of 2022, dated 15.07.2022. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served with the notice in the appeal but no one appeared. 9. The appellant has enhanced the claim from Rs.9,00,000/- to 14,15,000/- which was allowed by this Court vide I.A.No.2 of 2022, dated 15.07.2022. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served with the notice in the appeal but no one appeared. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the appellant/claimant went to PW2 after three months of the accident and he is not a treated doctor. Ex.A6 (disability certificate) issued by PW2 cannot be considered. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum awarded to the appellant. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The only point arises for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 13. The evidence of PW1 is that at the time of the accident he was aged about 42 years and was hale and healthy, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing housekeeping job and was looking after his family, he was treated for a period of five to six months. The Tribunal has totally ignored to calculate the earnings of the appellant. 14. PW2 is the orthopedic surgeon and he is also a member of the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He deposed that patient by name K.Hanumanthu came to his clinic on 27.03.2017 with a complaint of low back ache, ankle pain and pain in the left flank. The patient met with a road traffic accident in the month of December 2016 and he treated the patient with medication and physiotherapy, who came several times for future treatment up to 04.09.2018. The disability of the appellant/claimant is around 25%, which is permanent partial and functional. The loss of earning capacity is 60% and it is difficult for the appellant/claimant to work as house keeper and he advised the claimant to carry hand stick for support while walking, the claimant cannot carry weights, walk long distance and stand for prolonged periods and it is difficult for him to bend and the injuries sustained by the patient are grievous in nature and issued Ex.A6 disability certificate. 15. 15. Ex.A4 is the original CT Lumbosacral Spine Scan report issued by the TESLA Diagnostics of the claimant dated 23.12.2016, the injuries noted there on are (i) Burst fracture of D12 vertebral body with anterior wedge collapse and minimal pre-vertebral soft tissue collection (ii) fracture of left transverse process of D12 and adjacent left 12th rib (iii) anterior osteophytes at L4 and L5. In all the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the fracture injuries. 16. In Syed Saleem’s case (supra), this Court has observed at paragraph No. 14 that the time gap in obtaining the disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries, but naturally the wounds have to be yield so as to make assessment of the disability. The time taken in obtaining the disability certificate in the instant case is not too long to doubt its genuinity. 17. In Y. Devendar Goud’s case(supra), this Court observed at paragraph No.6 as under: “Admittedly, the claimant has sustained injuries and he was studying II year Engineering as the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in B.Ramulamma v. V.Venkatesh Bus Union – 2009 (6) ALD 634 (DB), the income of the claimant who was studying II Year Engineering at the time of accident can be taken at Rs.9,600/- per month and if the future prospects at 40% are added, the monthly income would come to Rs.13,440/- (Rs.9,600+3,840). As per Schedule II of the Act, if the annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the injured i.e.18, the total future earnings of the claimant in his normal life would be Rs.29,03,040/- (Rs.13,440X12X18). Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had sustained 20% disability. Hence, he is entitled Rs.5,80,608/- (Rs.29,03,040X20/100) towards loss of income due to disability.” 18. In J. Santosh Reddy’s case(supra), this Court observed at paragraph Nos.17 and 18 as under: “17. It is settled proposition that the effect of disability on the income earning capacity is the factor for consideration in assessing compensation for the disability and it is common knowledge that the disability rated by the doctor would refer to the physical disability. In J. Santosh Reddy’s case(supra), this Court observed at paragraph Nos.17 and 18 as under: “17. It is settled proposition that the effect of disability on the income earning capacity is the factor for consideration in assessing compensation for the disability and it is common knowledge that the disability rated by the doctor would refer to the physical disability. Thus, taking the particular of inability to sit for long time and other inconvenience stated by the doctors, the petitioner’s physical disability affecting the income earning capacity is believed at 25%. 18. In the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar - AIR 2020 SC 4424 held that future prospects enunciated in the dictum of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi – 2017 (16) SCC 860 and others is equally applicable to the cases of injuries in assessment of compensation. Therefore, by the age and pleaded occupation of the petitioner, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the annual loss of income at 25% would be Rs.75,600/-. If this sum is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner i.e., 17, the total amount comes to Rs.12,85,200/-. The petitioner is entitled to this amount towards loss of future income owing to the disability.” 19. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by PW2, who is also a member of medical board of Osmania General Hospital Hyderabad. Appellant went to PW2 for treatment after three months of the accident. The evidence of PW2 cannot be brushed aside in toto with that of Ex.A6. This Court is of view that PW2 is competent to issue Ex.A6 disability certificate and the decision in Syed Saleem 1 case is squarely applicable. 20. The Tribunal failed to answer the loss of earning and did not consider Ex.A6 disability certificate but awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for four grievous injuries. The decisions in Y. Devendar Goud(supra), case and J. Santosh Reddy(supra), case are applicable to the case on hand. 21. 20. The Tribunal failed to answer the loss of earning and did not consider Ex.A6 disability certificate but awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for four grievous injuries. The decisions in Y. Devendar Goud(supra), case and J. Santosh Reddy(supra), case are applicable to the case on hand. 21. The Court can grant compensation exceeding the claim amount subject to payment of Court fees, the same is considered by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003(1) ALD 1 (SC) = (2003) 2 SCC 274 reiterated in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (3) ALD 141 (SC) = (2015) 4 SCC 237 . 22.1 Accident has taken place on 23.12.2016, as per the claim petition, the appellant/claimant used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as a housekeeper. This Court is of the view that the earnings of the appellant per month is taken as Rs.8,000/- which will meet the ends of justice. The appellant was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident and future prospects to be added at 25%. The determination of compensation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation 1. Monthly income Rs.8,000/- 2. Add 25% future prospects (as per National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 ) Rs.10,000/- 8,000 + ((8,000 x 25%) = 2,000) 3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘14’ As per Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC). Rs.16,80,000/- (1,20,000 x 14) 5. Disability Rs.4,20,000/- (16,80,000 x 25%) 6. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 7. Loss of earning capacity Rs.60,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 6 months) 8. Transportation charges, extra nourishment, damages to clothing, nursing, shock and mental agony Rs.1,50,000/- 9. Total compensation Rs.6,70,000/- 22.2 Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683] 23. MACMA.No.86 of 2022 is allowed in part as hereunder: 1) The appellant/claimant is awarded compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (02.03.2017) till realization. MACMA.No.86 of 2022 is allowed in part as hereunder: 1) The appellant/claimant is awarded compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (02.03.2017) till realization. 2) Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, less the amount already deposited if any. 3) The appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.