JUDGMENT : V.SUJATHA, J. The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 25.01.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.464 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,83,395/- (Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand three hundred and ninety five only) to the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.06.2014. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: On 02.06.2014 morning, the petitioner started from his house at BC Road, Gajuwaka in his auto bearing registration number AP 31 TB 5658, along with his house owner and her son to go to Desapatrunipalem. While the petitioner was driving from Steel Plant to Paravada and when he reached near Sector-VI at around 11:00 AM, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 6343 was taking right turn towards Sector-VI from the opposite direction. Observing the bus, the petitioner stopped his auto. However, the bus, driven by the 1 st respondent came at high speed without blowing the horn and hit the stationed auto of the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. Then the auto overturned and the other passengers in the auto escaped without injury. The petitioner sustained a fracture in his right leg and was immediately taken to Sri Krishna Orthopedic Hospital, China Gantyada for first aid. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Spoorthy Hospital, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. Based on the complaint, a case was registered at Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam, in Crime No.98 of 2014 under Section 338 of IPC and Sections 134(a), 134(b) and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver of the bus. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also remained ex parte after filing their common counter. 05. Respondent No.3-APSRTC, filed a counter, denying the allegations made in Paragraph 26(a) and also rejected the claims mentioned under Columns 25 Special Damages and 25 General Damages of the petition. They alleged that the petitioner has fabricated the case with an intention to claim compensation unlawfully. 05. Respondent No.3-APSRTC, filed a counter, denying the allegations made in Paragraph 26(a) and also rejected the claims mentioned under Columns 25 Special Damages and 25 General Damages of the petition. They alleged that the petitioner has fabricated the case with an intention to claim compensation unlawfully. It is claimed that the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6343 was not involved in the alleged accident and that it was not driven rashly or negligently. The respondents contended that the accident was not genuine and the petitioner must prove with evidence the involvement of the insured vehicle. The respondents also questioned the genuineness of the petitioner’s hospitalization and treatment and demanded strict proof of the same. The respondents argued that the accident occurred due to the petitioner's own fault, such as overloading and unbalanced driving of the auto. The bus driver had already stopped the bus, blowing the horn frequently, but the petitioner had not followed Traffic rules and drove the auto in an unsafe and uncontrolled manner resulting in the accident. The bus driver operated the bus according to traffic rules as per Motor Vehicle Rules and he is having valid driving license on the date of the alleged accident. Further, the claim for interest at 12% was termed as excessive and contrary to the Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various reliance judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents claimed that the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing Regd. No.AP 11 Z 6343? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, from whom out of the respondents and to what extent? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. 08. 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.2,83,395/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the compensation. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein were directed to deposit the said compensation along with interest and costs within one month. Out of the deposited amount, petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.83,395/- together with interest and costs, and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of two years. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents No.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner could not establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the income and age of the petitioner/respondent No.1. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the 1 st respondent as 40% without any valid medical certificate. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and that the petitioner is not entitled for a huge compensation of Rs.2,83,395/- with higher rate of interest i.e. @7.5%, without there being sufficient evidence on record, and thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/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. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the petitioners and Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned Award dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal. 14. POINT: 12. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the petitioners and Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned Award dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal. 14. Though various grounds have been urged in the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant mainly stressed on the ground that the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the claimant at 40% without any valid basis. However, on perusal of the impugned award shows that to prove the disability suffered by him the petitioner relied upon the evidence of PW.2, who is the Consultant of Orthopedic Surgeon in Krishna Orthopedic Hospital. He examined the petitioner, advised the petitioner to undergo surgery as he sustained fracture of right hip joint. Accordingly, the petitioner got admitted to Sai Spoorthy Hospital and has undergone surgery. PW.2 has categorically deposed that on 02.06.2014, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital with injuries sustained in a road accident and on 05.06.2014 he had undergone surgery to right hip joint. He has categorically deposed that he has assessed the disability at 40% which is permanent and that the petitioner will have a functional limitation for performing manual labour and other hard work. In view of the categorical evidence of PW.2- Orthopedic Surgeon coupled with Ex.A10, disability certificate, showing that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 15. The petitioner got examined another Doctor P.Ashok Kumar as PW.3 on his behalf. He deposed that he was working as Professor of Orthomatic AMC, KGH, and their hospital issued Ex.A.10 i.e. Medical Certificate in respect of Orthomatically handicapped candidate, which is also called disability certificate. PW.3 further deposed that he authenticated issuance of Ex.A.10 disability certificate by PW.2 and the said Ex.A.10 disability certificate is being endorsed by their office consisting of 2 members, out of whom one is Chairman of Board, and another member is qualified Orthomatic Surgeon, and that the petitioner sustained major injury involving the hip joint, and the patient will have a functional limitation for performing manual labour and other hard work. 16. 16. The Tribunal below considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A.10 disability certificate, has rightly assessed the disability of the petitioner at the rate of 40%, as such the same cannot be found fault. Though the appeal has been preferred by APSRTC on various grounds, it is an admitted fact that respondents having failed to exhibit any document on their behalf, none were examined on their behalf to elicit nothing adverse from the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. 17. Next, coming to the quantum of compensation, though the claim of the petitioner is that he is working as an auto driver and earning Rs.9,000/- P.M since there is no documentary evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased the Tribunal considered notional income as Rs.3,000/- P.M (i.e. Rs.36,000/- P.A) which is just and reasonable since the disability sustained by the petitioner is 40%, by applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable to the age of the petitioner i.e. 35 years in terms of the decision of Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) , Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.2,30,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 40/100 x 16) towards loss of earnings of the petitioner. Further considering that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- compensation towards pain and suffering which is just and proper. Further Rs.10,000/- towards medical attendance charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.2,995/- for four medical bills as per Ex.A9 which cannot be found fault with. In total, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,83,395/ (Rs.2,30,400 + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,995/-) to the petitioner which is just, proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 18. Considering the age, injury sustained and also the amount awarded under other heads, this Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has not committed any wrong in assessing compensation on various heads taking note of the injury sustained, disability suffered and also the loss of amenities caused to the claimant on account of the accident. Under such circumstances, the total compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal as it appears to be just and proper and the appeal lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. Under such circumstances, the total compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal as it appears to be just and proper and the appeal lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. In view of the same, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.