JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1. [i] APSRTC-The 2 nd respondent before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Srikakulam [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2012, feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 14.3.2017 passed therein imposing liability to pay compensation of Rs.2,63,050/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/-, filed the present appeal. The 1 st respondent herein, is the claimant and the 2 nd respondent herein is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6906 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’]. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT. 2. 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: 3. [i] On 26.02.2010 while the claimant was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 J 8506 from Srikakulam to Bejjipuram and was near Byrivanipeta village road junction, at about 17.30 hours, the offending vehicle driven by its driver/ the 1 st respondent, coming from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam side, dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling, causing multiple injuries including fracture of left leg to the claimant. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, from there he was shifted to Nikhitha Private Hospital, at Visakhapatnam, where he took treatment for one month as in-patient. [ii] He was working as Field Assistant, in NREGS [National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme] and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was also attending agricultural works. But due to injuries he became disabled and unable to attend field work. He was in bed rest for six (06) months, incurred huge expenditure for treatment. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation. [iii] Further, the case of the claimant is that the accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and a case in Crime No.15 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 338 and 337 IPC in Srikakulam Traffic Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Since the 2 nd respondent/appellant, being owner of the offending vehicle and employer of the driver and the 1 st respondent being driver of the offending vehicle, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed. 4. 1 st respondent-driver of the bus remained ex parte. Since the 2 nd respondent/appellant, being owner of the offending vehicle and employer of the driver and the 1 st respondent being driver of the offending vehicle, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed. 4. 1 st respondent-driver of the bus remained ex parte. III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC, in brief, is that: 5. [i] The 1 st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle is an expert driver. Claimant was driving the motor cycle even without driving licence and negligence of the claimant is cause for the accident. The allegations contra made by the claimant are false. [ii] The claimant shall prove all the assertions made as to age, occupation, income and disability and loss of income etc.. [iii] The quantum of compensation claimed under various heads is exorbitant and in any event the 2 nd 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 petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.02.2010 at about 5.40 p.m., near Byrivanipeta village junction, new bridge, Srikakulam? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6906 by its driver or due to the driving of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 J 8506 by the petitioner himself or of both? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) 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 Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.15/2010 of Srikakulam Traffic Police Station - Nil- Ex.A2 Attested copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A3 Certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner/claimant. Ex.A4 Certified copy of accident report from Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.A5 Disability issued by issued by Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy, Orthopedic Surgeon in the name of Dannana Prasada Rao (Petitoner) Ex.A6 X-ray films four (04) in number. Ex.A7 Discharge Summary of Apex Hosptial, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A8 Blood Report of the claimant. Ex.A9 Prescription in the name of the claimant, issued by Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy. Ex.A10 Blood Report of the claimant. Ex.A11 Discharge Summary of Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A7 Discharge Summary of Apex Hosptial, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A8 Blood Report of the claimant. Ex.A9 Prescription in the name of the claimant, issued by Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy. Ex.A10 Blood Report of the claimant. Ex.A11 Discharge Summary of Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A12 Bunch of Medical Bills 10 in number for Rs.1,64,846.00/- Ex.A13 Bunch of Medical Bills 7 in number for RS.2,567/-. Ex.A14 Case Sheet and other reports of claimant issued by Nikhitha Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A15 Case Sheet of the claimant issued by the Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.X1 Case Sheet of claimant, issued by Apex Court, Visakhapatnam. Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Dannana Prasada Rao [Claimant / Petitioner] RW.1 :- Ch.Suryarao [Driver of the offending Vehicle] PW.2 Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy, [Orthopedic Surgeon, Apex Hospital] 8. Claimant was examined as PW.1. He has reiterated his pleadings about the accident, injuries suffered, treatment taken, disability etc.. One Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy working as Doctor at Apex Hosptial was examined as PW.2. Driver of the offending vehicle Chintada Surya Rao was examined as RW.1 on behalf of the 2 nd respondent. He has reiterated he defence taken by the RTC. V. Findings of the learned MACT:- 9. [i]. Evidence of PW.1 and crime record is sufficient to believe the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and there is no rebuttal evidence. There is gross negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. However, the claimant also contributed for the accident and the negligence is to be apportioned among the driver of the bus and the claimant, at 80% and 20% respectively. [ii] For the income of the claimant/injured there is no documentary proof. Treatment record is indicating that the claimant has taken treatment in Nikhitha Hospital under Rajiv Aarogyasri Community Health Scheme. [iii] Evidence of Dr.T.V. Ramana Murthy, Orthopaedic Surgeon is indicating nature of treatment given including operation. Ex.A5 is disclosing disability at 20%, the petitioner sustained three injuries, but one injury is grievous, medical bills Ex.A12 and Ex.A13 are indicating expenditure of Rs.1,64,846/- and Rs.2,567/-. [iv] The evidence of PW.2 cannot be discarded without rebuttable evidence. The disability can be considered at 15%. Income of the injured/claimant can be notionally taken at Rs.3500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- p.a.. 15% of the same comes to Rs.6300/- p.a., upon application of multiplier ‘16’, the entitlement under loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. [iv] The evidence of PW.2 cannot be discarded without rebuttable evidence. The disability can be considered at 15%. Income of the injured/claimant can be notionally taken at Rs.3500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- p.a.. 15% of the same comes to Rs.6300/- p.a., upon application of multiplier ‘16’, the entitlement under loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. Loss of income for 3 months comes to Rs.10,500/- @3,500/- and Rs.40,000/- is fit to be awarded towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,67,513/- can be awarded towards medical expenses considering the bills under Ex.A12 and Ex.A13. In all the entitlement comes to Rs.3,28,813/-. However, on reduction of the same at 20% towards the contribution of the negligence of the claimant, the claimant’s entitlement comes to Rs.2,63,050/- . VI. Grounds/Arguments in the Appeal: nd For the Appellant-2 respondent-APSRTC:- 10. [i] Learned MACT failed in appreciating the negligence on the part of the claimant and erred in holding that there is gross negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. [ii] Learned MACT failed to note that the claimant did not possess driving licence to drive the motor cycle and failed to add the owner and Insurance Company of the Motor cycle. [iii] Leaned MACT erred ignoring the evidence of RW.1, driver of the bus. [iv] Learned MACT erred in accepting the income of the claimant at Rs.3500/- per month, without any basis and calculating the loss of income. [v] Quantification of compensation done under various heads is exorbitant. VII. For the Respondent-Claimant: 11. [i] The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT is inadequate and the learned MACT should have awarded more compensation than what claimed, for which there is no bar. Learned MACT erred in attributing negligence to the claimant at 20%. [ii] The evidence of RW.1 is self-serving and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the RTC bus viz., 1 st respondent. In the absence of any third party evidence, apportionment of negligence to the claimant is not correct. There are no grounds to interfere and appeal is fit to be dismissed, however, enhancing compensation awarded by the learned MACT. 12. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 13. In the absence of any third party evidence, apportionment of negligence to the claimant is not correct. There are no grounds to interfere and appeal is fit to be dismissed, however, enhancing compensation awarded by the learned MACT. 12. Perused the record and 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 26.02.2010 has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? Or whether it was due to any negligence on the part of the claimant? If so, what is the extent of contribution of the claimant in occurrence of the accident? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, for what quantum? And whether the compensation of Rs.2,63,050/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any modification? If so, to what tune? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Points No.1 14. 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. 15. 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. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. 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..” Analysis Of Evidence:- 16. Oral Evidence:- [i] Claimant /PW.1 is an eye witness to the accident. He has deposed that when he was near Bhairavanipeta village road junction, the driver of the offending vehicle came and dashed in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident and injuries and a case is registered vide Crime No.15 of 2010. Negligence of the driver of the bus is cause for the accident. He is having driving licence to the drive the motor cycle. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that the bus was coming in opposite direction. He has denied the suggestions that he has dashed the stationed bus and that the bus did not ran over him, but stopped on the spot after hitting and he fell down. He has denied the suggestion that the bus did not hit him. [ii] RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle deposed that he was driving the vehicle in normal speed, taking all precautions to avoid the accident. He has stated that the claimant dashed the bus in opposite direction. During the cross-examination, he has stated that the road at the scene of offence is a doubled road and possibility of passing of two buses. [iii] The theory of 1 st respondent as to claimant hitting the stationed bus is not spoken by RW.1. Third party evidence is not there. Any other witness cited by police under Ex.A2 is not examined. There is no appeal by the claimant, questioning apportionment of negligence. The precedential guidance as to considering the entitlement for just compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimant, in an appeal filed by the owner Insurance Company may not extend to examining the substantial aspects as to negligence itself, in the absence of appeal by the claimant. There is no appeal by the claimant, questioning apportionment of negligence. The precedential guidance as to considering the entitlement for just compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimant, in an appeal filed by the owner Insurance Company may not extend to examining the substantial aspects as to negligence itself, in the absence of appeal by the claimant. [iv] The contention of appellant that apportionment of negligence at80% and 20% among the driver of RTC bus and the claimant [motor cyclist] require revisit and revamped, making at 50% each found not convincing in the light of the evidence available on record. 17. There is no appeal from the claimant questioning the apportionment of negligence. Substantial negligence of the driver of the RTC bus is there. There was possibility for the motor cyclist also to avoid the accident as the vehicles were coming opposite direction and as it is elicited during the cross-examination of RW.1 that the road is vide and two (02) buses can pass at one time. In view of the evidence on record, the contribution of motor cyclist, who is the claimant at 20% taken by the learned MACT is fit to be accepted. For all the reasons aforestated, point No.1 is answered concluding that the negligence of the claimant at 20% and the driver of the offending vehicle at 80%, is the cause for the accident and finding of the learned MACT to that extent is fit for concurrence. Point No.2:- Precedential Guidance: 18. 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:- (ii). 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:- (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. 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 processof 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. (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 only in 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. 19. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. 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. 19. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others , 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. 20. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (11 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court inSurekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 467 . 21. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (12 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancementon the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. Analysis of Evidence: Oral Evidence:- 22. [i] Claimant as PW.1 stated about the accident, injuries suffered, treatment taken at various hospital, disability suffered, age, occupation and income etc.. [ii] PW.2, Dr.T.V.Ramana Murthy, who treated the claimant/petitioner has stated as follows: “Chief examination: I have treated Mr.D.Prasad Rao, who is present in front of me on07.11.2011 and he admitted in APEX Hospital. He has a vascular necroses of left fever sustained earlier in an injury and appeared elsewhere one year 8 months ago. He has scar on left hip and orthrine changes. On 08.11.2011 I performed total hip replacement on the patient and discharged on 18.11.2011. Subsequently, he was under follow up treatment. I have issued Ex.A5- Disability Certificate assigning present disability to left lover limp at 20%. All medical bills and prescriptions are pertaining to treatment. He needed three months bed rest from the date of operation. Subsequently he under un-plast of left leg. Case sheet marked as Ex.C1. Cross-Examination:- I have not treated first opposed immediately after injuries. It is not true to suggest that he was alright to do operation and re-placement nor recovery. It is not true that all medical bills and prescriptions are created. It is not true to suggest that I have not issued Disability Certificate. It is not true that he has not having any disability and issue the certificate. It is true to suggest that the discharge summary patient and advised bed rest. It is not true to suggest that I have helped the patient. Documentary Evidence: 23. Ex.C1 is the case sheet. Ex.A3, wound certificate is reflecting the following injuries: 1) Swelling and tenderness of left leg, x-ray shows fracture both tibia and fibula of left leg; 2) A sutured laceration of 4cm on left eye brow and 3) Multiple abrasion on left hand and pain. 24. ExA5- Disability Certificate, issued by Dr.T.V. Ramana Murthy, consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, which is indicating the disability at 20%. It is relevant to note that the document- Ex.A5/Disability Certificate is not issued by the Medical Board. 24. ExA5- Disability Certificate, issued by Dr.T.V. Ramana Murthy, consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, which is indicating the disability at 20%. It is relevant to note that the document- Ex.A5/Disability Certificate is not issued by the Medical Board. However, PW.2, Doctor, who issued Ex.A5 has deposed about the Disability certificate and stated that the disability is permanent and restricted to left lower limb and denied the suggestion that the claimant is not having any disability, 25. Ex.A6 is X-rays, Ex.A7 is the Discharge Summary issued by the Apex Hospital indicating the date of admission as 7.11.2011 the date of discharge on 18.11.2011. Ex.A8 is the Diagnosis Report relating to the investigation done. Ex.A9 and Ex.10 are the prescriptions. Ex.A11 is indicating the admission of the applicant/petitioner in Apex Hospital on 23.11.2012 and Discharge 26.11 2012. EX.A12 medical bills are standing for Rs.1,64,846/- and Ex.A13, medical bills are standing for Rs.2,567/- in all. Ex.A14 is relating to treatment done at Nikhitha Hospital. Ex.A15 is Case sheet of Apex Hospital. Ex.C1 is also case sheet of Apex Hospital. Findings and Conclusions:- 26. There is no serious dispute about the employment of the claimant. However, there is no proof for the exact income of the claimant. As per the medical record, age of the claimant is ‘33’ years. The income taken at Rs.3500/- by the learned MACT is contended as excessive by the appellant/2 nd respondent-APSRTC and the claimant contended the same is very low. Further future prospects are also not added. 27. Upon considering the age of the claimant and other socio economic responsibilities etc., and upon considering the aspect of objection of non- inclusion of future prospects with reference to the occupation pleaded and year of accident etc., it is found that the income of the claimant can be taken at Rs.4000/- per month, inclusive of future prospects. 28. PW.2, the Doctor stated that the disability of the claimant is at 20%, with reference to Ex.A5. The Certificate is not issued by the medical board.Learned MACT has taken the disability at 15% without any basis. PW.2 is an expert, even according to the observations of the learned MACT. 28. PW.2, the Doctor stated that the disability of the claimant is at 20%, with reference to Ex.A5. The Certificate is not issued by the medical board.Learned MACT has taken the disability at 15% without any basis. PW.2 is an expert, even according to the observations of the learned MACT. Therefore, the 20% disability stated by the Doctor should have been taken as it is, then the loss of income comes to [Rs.4000/-x20%] Rs.800/- per month and it comes to Rs.9600/- per annum, whereas the learned MACT taken the loss of income at Rs.6300/- p.a. [@Rs.3500/- x12 x15%]. The multiplier for the age group of ‘33’ is ‘16’ which the learned MACT has rightly adopted. Then the claimant entitled for compensation of [Rs.9600/- x ‘16’] Rs.1,53,600/- under the head of loss of income. Under the other heads like pain and suffering attendant charges, transportation etc., the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, require reconsideration in tune with the precedential guidance referred above. 29. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: S. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Medicines and Medical Treatment [Medical Expenditure] Rs.1,67,513/- Rs.1,67,513/- 2. Loss of earning capacity due to disability [loss of future earnings] Rs.1,00,800/- Rs.1,53,600/- 3. Loss of Income during treatment period Rs.10,500/- Rs.12,000/- 4. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Future Treatment Nil Rs.10,000/- 6. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.10,000/- 7. Loss of amenities of Life and discomfort Nil Rs.20,000/- 8. Loss of Future Prospects Nil Rs.20,000/- 9. Conveyance and special diet/ Extra nourishment of food Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Total Balance : Rs.3,28,813/- [-] Rs.65,763/- [However on reduction 20% towards contribu- tion of negligence of the claimant] = Rs.2,63,050/- Rs.4,53,113/- [-] Rs. 90,623/- reduction of [On 20% of the same comes to] =Rs.3,62,490/- 30. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ] at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel thatthe compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 31. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,53,113/-, and 80% of the same comes to Rs.3,62,490/-. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the same. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3:- 32. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 31. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,53,113/-, and 80% of the same comes to Rs.3,62,490/-. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the same. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3:- 32. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1 and 2, in the result, appeal is dismissed: [i] However, the compensation of Rs.2,63,050/- with interest @9%p.a. awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned decree and order, is modified to Rs.3,62,490/-, with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. [ii] The claimant/petitioner shall pay the Court fee in respect of enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. [iii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit. [iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.