JUDGMENT : V.SUJATHA, J. The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 26.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.228 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) to respondent No.1 herein/petitioner, as against the claim of Rs.18,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 22.04.2012. 02. Appellant/Insurance Company is the 2 nd respondent, respondent No.1/injured herein is the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein/owner of the offending vehicle is the 1 st respondent before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows: a) On 22.04.2012 evening, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle from Thummalapenta to M.Uppalapadu village, duly following traffic rules by going on extreme left side of the road, and when he reached near a school at Gorvimanupalli village, one tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP 21 TT 7987 and AP 21 TT 7988 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from his behind without blowing horn and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries to his right leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Apple Orthopedic Hospital, Kurnool, where he took treatment as an in-patient from 22.04.2012 to 20.06.2012 and underwent surgery and spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical and other expenses. b) It is further contended that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained permanent disability and despite undergoing treatment, he has not regained normal movements to his right leg and is unable to perform any physical work much less agricultural work. It is contended that the petitioner was aged about 26 years and earning Rs.75,000/- per annum by doing cultivation prior to the accident. Therefore, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter, denying the manner in which the accident occurred as well as age and income of the petitioner prior to the accident. Therefore, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter, denying the manner in which the accident occurred as well as age and income of the petitioner prior to the accident. It was the contention of respondent No.2 that the offending vehicle is not covered by insurance policy at the material point of time and that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license and therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner who drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without valid driving license. It was further contended that the report was lodged four days after the incident, which rises suspicion with regard to the occurrence as well as the involvement of the insured vehicle. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident dated 22.04.2012 occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 21 TT 7987 and AP 21 TT 7988 as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B.1 was marked. Ex.X1-case sheet of the petitioner was also marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. Ex.X1-case sheet of the petitioner was also marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner was an agriculturist and in the absence of substantive evidence in proof of his income, the Tribunal took the income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum and having considered Ex.A9-Disability Certificate coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3-doctors, assessed the disability sustained by the petitioner as 50% and accordingly, arrived at Rs.30,000/- (50% of Rs.60,000/-) for the purpose of computing the loss of earnings of the petitioner. By applying the multiplier of „17? applicable to the age of the petitioner i.e., 26 years, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) , the Tribunal calculated the loss of earnings at Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 17). Further, having considered Ex.A6-medical bills, which would show that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.2,14,027/- towards medical expenses, which was also substantiated by the evidence of P.W.2- doctor who treated the petitioner in a private hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, having considered the fact that the petitioner has undergone treatment in the hospital as an in- patient for two months for the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner would not have attended any work for a period of six months and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.5000 X 6) towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Further, considering that the petitioner would face difficulty in attending the agricultural work due to the disability sustained by him, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Further, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferance and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and extra- nourishment. In all, the total compensation was arrived at Rs.8,99,000/-, which was rounded up to Rs.9,00,000/-. Further, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferance and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and extra- nourishment. In all, the total compensation was arrived at Rs.8,99,000/-, which was rounded up to Rs.9,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to the petitioner payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the respondents were directed to deposit compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest within 30 days from the date of the award. Upon such deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. The rest of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- with proportionate interest was directed to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years and thereafter, the petitioner was held entitled to withdraw the same with accrued interest. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal, contending that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner failed to prove the manner of accident, his age, avocation and income. It is further contended that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month as the earnings of the petitioner, instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability as 50%, when P.W.3-doctor himself admitted that the disability of 72% is only in relation to right lower limb and not to the entire body. It is further contended that the compensation granted to the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and the rate of interest granted is also on higher side and thus, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. Though various grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly challenged the impugned award on two grounds, firstly, with regard to the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident and secondly, with regard to the assessment of disability sustained by the petitioner. POINT: 12. Though various grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly challenged the impugned award on two grounds, firstly, with regard to the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident and secondly, with regard to the assessment of disability sustained by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there was no valid and sufficient proof filed by the petitioner to prove his age as 26 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal erred in considering the age of the petitioner as 26 years for the purpose of computing the quantum of compensation. However, it is to be noted that claimant has filed Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A4-Discharge Summary Ex.A9-Disability Certificate, which would contain the age of the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned award indicates that nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the age claimed by the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in taking the age of the petitioner as 26 years as on the date of accident for the purpose of computing the quantum of compensation. 13. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though as per Ex.A9-Disability Certificate, the disability sustained by the petitioner is only to an extent of 72% of the right lower limb and not to the entire body, the Tribunal has erred in considering the same as 50% permanent disability. The said contention does not merit acceptance for the reason that the petitioner was an agriculturist and on account of 72% disability in relation to right lower limb, his ability to engage in agricultural works would be significantly affected and thus, it should, in fact considered as 100% functional disability. 14. The said contention does not merit acceptance for the reason that the petitioner was an agriculturist and on account of 72% disability in relation to right lower limb, his ability to engage in agricultural works would be significantly affected and thus, it should, in fact considered as 100% functional disability. 14. In Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. , [ (2020) 1 SCC 796 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the claim petition of an injured whose right leg got permanently injured resulting in complete disability to continue his occupation as a driver, referring to the earlier decisions on the aspect of functional disability has held that the functional disability suffered by the claimant therein should be assessed as 100%, as he had lost the ability to work as a driver and the prospect of securing any other manual labour job was also not possible. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under : “12. In K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 518 : (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 733 this Court examined the loss of earning capacity in the case of a tanker driver who had met with an accident, and lost one of his legs due to amputation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation assessed the functional disability of the tanker driver as 100% and awarded compensation on that basis. The High Court, however, referred to Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and held that loss of a leg on amputation resulted in only 60% loss of earning capacity. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that since the workman could no longer earn his living as a tanker driver due to loss of one leg, the functional disability had to be assessed as 100%. 13. In S. Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., [United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. K Janardhan, 2001 SCC OnLine Kar 841] this Court held that : (SCC p. 780, para 9) “9. … We are of the opinion that on account of amputation of his right leg below knee, he is rendered unfit for the work of a driver, which he was performing at the time of the accident resulting in the said disablement. … We are of the opinion that on account of amputation of his right leg below knee, he is rendered unfit for the work of a driver, which he was performing at the time of the accident resulting in the said disablement. Therefore, he has lost 100% of his earning capacity as a lorry driver, more so, when he is disqualified from even getting a driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” (emphasis supplied) 14. The aforesaid judgments are instructive for assessing the compensation payable to the appellant in the present case. As a consequence of the accident, the appellant has been incapacitated for life, since he can walk only with the help of a walking stick. He has lost the ability to work as a driver, as he would be disqualified from even getting a driving license. The prospect of securing any other manual labour job is not possible, since he would require the assistance of a person to ensure his mobility and manage his discomfort. As a consequence, the functional disability suffered by the appellant must be assessed as 100%.” 15. In the instant case also, as noted above, the petitioner sustained disability to his right lower limb. Thus, his ability to engage in agricultural works would be significantly affected. In view of the same, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the assessment of the disability sustained by the petitioner as 50% for the purpose of computing the loss of earnings by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. 16. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned award, awarding a total compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident and no interference is warranted therewith in the present appeal. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.