JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1.[i] One E.Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana [herein after referred as ‘the claimant’] filed a petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [for short M.v. Act], before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Eluru [for short “MACT], claiming compensation of Rs. 11,60,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15.11.2008, contending that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1213 [for short the ‘offending vehicle], Learned MACT under the Decree and Order dated 07.02.2018 awarded a compensation of Rs.11,56,000/-. [ii] Feeling aggrieved by the liability imposed and the quantum of compensation awarded, the APSRTC filed the present appeal. 2. The 1st respondent before the learned MACT is the driver and he is the 2nd respondent in this appeal. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. II. Case of the claimant in brief: 4. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 15.11.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle, near Eluru Railway Station, Old Tollgate, Goods Shed road, Eluru, the offending vehicle driven by the1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite direction and dashed the claimant, whereby the claimant suffered severe head injury and multiple injuries ail over the body. The claimant was shifted to Asram Hospital, Eluru where he was treated as ‘in patient’ for (16)days from there he was referred to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment and he took treatment there till 12.12.2008, undergone major operations. He was treated by the Doctors, Dr.M.Giridhar Kumar, Dr.A.N. Prasad and Dr.G.V.Reddy. He has incurred an expenditure Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment tests, medicine, transportation and physiotherapy. He was advised to take bed rest for one year. [ii] Further the claimant claimed that he is an advocate by profession, aged about 44 years, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, due to accident he became disabled. Hence, he is entitled for the compensation claimed. III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC. in brief, is that: 5. He was advised to take bed rest for one year. [ii] Further the claimant claimed that he is an advocate by profession, aged about 44 years, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, due to accident he became disabled. Hence, he is entitled for the compensation claimed. III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC. in brief, is that: 5. [i] Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, nature of injuries suffered, age, occupation and income of the claimant, loss of income, etc., the negligence of the claimant is also the reason for the accident, he was not wearing helmet/cap in a rainy season and the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and the Insurance Company of the motor cycle. [ii] Accident occurred on 15.11.2008, F.I.R. was registered on 17.11.2008 and there is suppression of material facts by the claimant. [iii] The quantum of compensation claimed under various heads is exorbitant and in any event the 2"^' respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the injuries were caused due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1213, on 15.11.2008 at about 5 a.m., opposite to Eluru Railway Station Goods Shed Road, Eluru II Town Limits, West Godavari District by the driver/respondent No.1? 2) Does the driver/respondent No.1 possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident? 3) Whether the Insurance Policy is in force at the time of accident? 4) Whether the Petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? 5) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Victor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 37 AB 5399 being driven by its rider/claimant/injured and has any contributory negligence of the accident? 6) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 7. Oral and Documentary evidence:- For the Claimant For the Respondents Exhibit No. Description Exhibit Description No. EX.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.175 of 2008 of Eluru II Town Police Station Nil- EX.A2 Attested copy of Wound Certificate. EX.A3 Attested copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A4 Attested copy of Certificate of Registration. EX.A5 Attested copy of Discharge Summary issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada. EX.A6 Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, District Hospital, Eluru. EX.A3 Attested copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A4 Attested copy of Certificate of Registration. EX.A5 Attested copy of Discharge Summary issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada. EX.A6 Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, District Hospital, Eluru. EX.A7 Bunch of X-ray (3 in Number) EX.A8 Essentiality Certificate issued by ASRAM Hospital, Eluru EX.A9 Certificate issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada. EX.A10 Hospital Bill details issued by ARAM Hospital, Eluru. Ex.X1 True copy of Case Sheet. Ex.X2 True copy of Case Sheet. Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Ekkudu Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana [Claimant / Petitioner] -Nil- PW.2 Dr.G.V. Reddy [Orthopaedic Surgeon, Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada] PW.3 DrA.V.R. Mohan [Civil Surgeon Orthopedic and Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Eluru and Member of District Medical Board, Eluru] PW.4 Dr.Teegala Ramesh [Consultant Neurosurgeon, ASRAM Hospital] 8. In the context of the pleadings and parties and as the driver of the offending vehicle being employee of APSRTC. issues No.2 and 3 does not arise. Hence, this Court finds it proper to observe that it is the settled practice to formulate issues and the object of framing of issues is to drive the parties to a particular frame work within which they have to travel. Mechanical wav of framing of issues absolutely irrelevant to the context shall be avoided bv the Trial Courts. When a case is filed bv a victim of motor vehicle accident against the Road Transport Corporation, owner of the offending vehicle, when there is no party like the Insurance Company and when there is no defence of absence of driving licence etc., framing of issues touching the point of validity of driving of licence and the Insurance Policy, should have been avoided. A reading of written statement filed suggest that the issues touching the driving licence and Insurance Policy is being in force does not arise. However, it is relevant to note that at the time of disposal of the matter, the wisdom prevailed and the issues touching the same are deleted bv the learned MACT. A reading of written statement filed suggest that the issues touching the driving licence and Insurance Policy is being in force does not arise. However, it is relevant to note that at the time of disposal of the matter, the wisdom prevailed and the issues touching the same are deleted bv the learned MACT. V. Findings of the learned MACT:- 8[i] While addressing the issues, i.e., issues No.1, 4 and 5, touching the accident and negligence, learned MACT relying on the evidence of PW.1 the injured/claimant, referring to the corroboration from the documentary evidence, Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-wound certificate, Ex.A3-charge sheet and also absence of evidence from the respondent side rebutting the evidence of PW.1 and failure to elicit anything during the cross-examination of PW.1, found that the pleaded negligence is proved, While quantifying the compensation, learned MACT referring to the profession of the claimant as an Advocate, hospitalisation, evidence of Doctors, PWs.2 to 4 and documentary evidence Ex.A2, Ex.A5 and Ex.AIO and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2- documents, taking income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-, disability of both upper limbs @62%, awarded compensation as follows:- SI.No. Head Amount 1. Compensation under the heads injury, shock, pain and suffering Rs.85,000-00 2. Compensation under the heads medical and other hospital, expenses Rs.1,71,135-00 3. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings, past and present Rs.56,000-00 4. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings (present and future) Rs.8,33,280-00 5. Compensation under the head of transportation and attendant charges Rs.10,000-00 TOTAL Rs.11,55,415-00 Rounded to [Rs.11,56,000-00] VI. Arguments in the Appeal: For the Appellant-respondent-APSRTC:- 9. [i] Learned MACT failed to consider the contributory negligence of the claimant in riding the motor cycle, which was specifically pleaded by the respondent/appellant. The defence of non-joinder of necessary parties is also left unanswered by the learned MACT. [ii] There is no basis for taking income at Rs.8000/-. [iii] Quantification of compensation under various heads is based on congestures and surmises as well as irrational. Hence, the liability is to be apportioned and scaled down. VII. For the Respondent-Claimant: 10. [i] There is clear evidence touching the negligence of the driver of APSRTC bus, therefore, the findings of the learned MACT on the point of negligence are fit to be accepted when the negligence is exclusively on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, objection relating to non-joinder of the parties does not survive. For the Respondent-Claimant: 10. [i] There is clear evidence touching the negligence of the driver of APSRTC bus, therefore, the findings of the learned MACT on the point of negligence are fit to be accepted when the negligence is exclusively on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, objection relating to non-joinder of the parties does not survive. [ii] Quantification of compensation under various heads, done by the learned MACT is rational, well reasoned, does not require any interference. However, the learned MACT, should have awarded more compensation taking the profession of claimant and effect of the injuries etc. into consideration and there is no bar for awarding more compensation even at this appellate stage. 11. Perused the record. 12. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 15.11.2008 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? Or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? 2) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the owner and insurance company of the motor cycle, in which claimant was travelling? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.11,56,000/- awarded by the learned MACT, is just and reasonable? If not, require any interference by this Court for enhancement or reduction? 4) What is the result of the appeal? 14. Since point Nos.1 and 2 are inter-linked, they are being discussed and answered together. Points No.1 and 2 Parameters MACT can consider while assessing negligence: 15. i) Whether there is denial by proper person. ii) There must be convincing evidence from disputing party. iii) There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination. iv) Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb rule. V) Examination of witnesses present at the scene of offence, at relevant time. Vi) The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have some importance, in cases of contributory negligence. vii) In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary. Vi) The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have some importance, in cases of contributory negligence. vii) In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary. viii) The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc. will be helpful to draw some inference. ix) However, no straight jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before the tribunal. X) Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter. 16. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. Reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: 1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another , 2013 (10) SCC 946 2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , 2009 (13) SCC 530 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta , 2011 (10) SCC 509 4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another , AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 17. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2 supra), which reads as under: 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” 18. While addressing the defence of contributory negligence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others , 2024 (6) ALD (SC)=2024 SCC Online SC 2584 at Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 made reference to other judgments and extracted relevant observations which are as follows: 36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak , { (2002) 6 SCC 455 } , this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., {(1999) 73 ALJR 403}, went on to hold that: "... where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty.’’ 37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, {1931 AC 1}, as below: “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence. ” 19. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court lead to understand that mere failure to avoid the collision or take extraordinary precautions does not constitute negligence. Analysis Of Evidence:- 20. Claimant is an eye witness and injured. He has stated about the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. His evidence in respect of allegation as to the negligence is having corroboration from Exs.AI/F.I.R. and A3/Charge Sheet. There is no denial about the driver of the offending vehicle facing tribunal charge. The result of the Criminal case is not known and even the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined. His evidence in respect of allegation as to the negligence is having corroboration from Exs.AI/F.I.R. and A3/Charge Sheet. There is no denial about the driver of the offending vehicle facing tribunal charge. The result of the Criminal case is not known and even the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined. Any other witness cited by the Prosecution in Ex.A3/charge sheet is not examined before the Court. Therefore, the findings of the learned MACT on the point of negligence are found proper and hence accepted and concurred. 21. To show that there was contributory negligence on part of the injured/claimant there is no convincing material available on record, therefore, the argument touching non-joinder of necessary parties viz.. owner and Insurance Company of the Motor cycle in which the claimant was travelling, required to be answered against the APSRTC/appellant. For the afore stated reasons, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the claimant and against the appellant /APSRTC. Point No.3:- Precedential Guidance: 22. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. ,2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors , 2020(04) SCC 413, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S.No. Head Amount(in) 1 Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx 2 Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx 3 Pain and Suffering xxxxx 4 Future Treatment xxxxx 5 Attendant Charges xxxxx 6 Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx 7 Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx 8 Special Education Expenditure xxxxx 9 Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx 10 Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxx Total xxxxx (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , 2010(10) SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , 2010(10) SCC 341 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud , 2007 (14) SCC 61 as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation , 1992(2) SCC 567 as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that '' "The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible In the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation." (iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another' , 2011 (1) SCC 343 vide para No.19 the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :- ...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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 onlyin regard 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...” (iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. , 2023 (3) SCC 439 vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident. (V) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., 1995(1) SCC 551 . From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 23. [i] Documentary Evidence:- Ex.A1 is F.I.R., Ex.A2 is Wound Certificate, Ex.A3 is Charge Sheet, Ex.A4 is Certificate of Registration, Ex.AS is the Discharge Summary issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada and Ex.A6 is the Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, District Hospital, Eluru, Ex.A7 is Bunch of X-ray (3 in Number), Ex.AS is Essentiality Certificate issued by ASRAM Hospital, Eluru, Ex.A9 is the Certificate issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada and Ex.AIO is the Hospital Bill details issued by ASRAM Hospital, Eluru are relied on by claimant. [ii] Oral Evidence: Claimant as PW.1 stated about the accident, injures sustained by him including the head injury and treatment under gone at Ashram Hospital, Eluru and Manipal Hospital viz.. Doctors M.Giridhar Kumar, Dr.A.N. Prasad and Dr. G.V.Reddy attending him, etc., adding that he has suffered facture. Disability is assessed at 62%, due to which he is unable to practice. 24. The evidence of PW.2, Dr.G.V.Reddy, consultant Orthopedic surgeon at Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, discloses that the following injuries are noted: 1) Head injury with fronto parietal contusion with craniotomy defect 2) Proximal right tibia fracture 3) Right clavicle fracture 4) Rib fractures noted. 25. The summary of evidence of PW.2 suggests that as per medical record, the claimant incurred Rs.57,920/- as medical expenditure and undergone surgery, there will not be normal function and normal mobility. 26. As per the evidence of PW.3, Dr.A.V.R. Mohan, the disability of claimant is assessed at 62% and Ex.A6 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board and the disability is permanent in nature. He has denied the suggestion that the disability is excessive in nature. 27. As per the evidence of PW.4, Dr.Teegala Ramesh consulting surgeon, he attended the claimant at Asram Hospital, the claimant suffered serious head injury, after two days of admission with improved general condition the claimant was shifted to Orthopedics for the management of fracture right leg both bones, thereafter, as a life saving measure brain surgery was done on 28.11.2008, the claimant developed complications like liver and Kidney failure and jaundice. The summary of medical expenses at Asram Hospital covered under Ex.A8 and Ex.AIO i.e., Rs.80,823/- and Rs.21,365/- respectively. During the cross-examination, nothing important to discredit his evidence is adduced. 28. [ij Income of the claimant is taken at Rs.8000/- by the learned MACT. [ii] The argument of the claimant that future prospects are not added is countered by the appellant that the I income taken as notional basis is on high side. For any reason, the argument of the appellant that the income taken i is on high side is fit to be accepted for want of proper evidence, non-inclusion of future prospects is convincing factor to accept the income taken by the learned MACT @Rs.8000/- is just and proper. [iii] Age of the claimant is 44 years, there is no serious denial about the profession/occupation of the claimant as an advocate. [iii] Age of the claimant is 44 years, there is no serious denial about the profession/occupation of the claimant as an advocate. [iv] The disability assessed under Ex.A6 spoken by PW.4 has been rightly adopted by the learned MACT. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of income due to disability need not be found fault. However, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings @Rs.8,33,280/- is rounded to Rs.8,35,000/-. 29. Quantification of loss of i income under the past and present at Rs.56,000/- awarded by the learned MACT can be understood the loss of income during the period of treatment at hospitals and bed rest etc., The claimant referred that he was advised bed rest around one year. Even if the same is found to be exaggerated, bed rest of (07) months and loss of income at Rs.56,000/-, total loss of income at Rs.56,000/- around seven months can be reasonably accepted. 30. Compensation under the head of pain and suffering @Rs.85,000/- appears to be reasonable. Compensation under the head of Transpiration and attendant charges appears to be low, which is at Rs.10,000/- However, the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The medical expenditure awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.1,71,135/- appears to be miscalculation, Ex.XI is covering Rs.57,920/-, Ex.AS is standing for Rs.80,823/- and Ex.AIO is standing for Rs.21,365/-. Therefore, in all the total comes to around 1,60,108/-, which can be rounded to Rs.1,60,000/-. 31. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:] Si. No. Head Granted by MACT Found just by this Appellate Court 1. Compensation under the heads injury, shock, pain and suffering Rs. 85,000/- Rs.85,000/- 2 Compensation under the heads hospital, medical and other expenses Rs. 1,71,135/- Rs. 1,60,000/- 3. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings, during bed rest and treatment period. Rs.56.000/- Rs.56,000/- 4. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings and permanent disability Rs.8,33.280/- Rs.8.35,000/- 5. Compensation under the head of transportation and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Total Rs. 1,55,415/- Rounded to Rs.11,56,000/- Rs.11,56,000/- 32. 1,71,135/- Rs. 1,60,000/- 3. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings, during bed rest and treatment period. Rs.56.000/- Rs.56,000/- 4. Compensation under the head of loss of earnings and permanent disability Rs.8,33.280/- Rs.8.35,000/- 5. Compensation under the head of transportation and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Total Rs. 1,55,415/- Rounded to Rs.11,56,000/- Rs.11,56,000/- 32. For the reasons stated above, point No.3 is answered against the appellant concluding that the compensation of Rs.11,56,000/- awarded by the learned MACT, is just and reasonable and does not require any interference either for enhancement or for reduction. 33. Point No.4:- For the reasons stated above and conclusions drawn under points No.1 to 3, and in the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.