JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.305 of 2015, dated 24.02.2020, wherein claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the respondents herein in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.12.2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.305 of 2015 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in bike accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the rider of another bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280. It is contended that on 16.12.2014, the petitioner while going to Medchal town after completing his work, from Kandlakoya on his bike bearing No.AP-28- BT-7097, on the way one bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to petitioner’s bike, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Balaji Hospital at Pet Basheerbad, Secunderabad for treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.518 of 2014 against the rider of bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280 4. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as an operator in INBISCO India Limited Company and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-. Due to the accident the petitioner was completely bedridden and was unable to do his work and suffered 45% of disability as per Ex.A7 issued by Medical Board and cannot sit in normal position, sit with cross legs and squat. The petitioner/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the said accident under various heads. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Owner-cum-Driver remained ex-parte. The petitioner/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the said accident under various heads. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Owner-cum-Driver remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the petitioner and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: “i) Whether the injured S.Naga Raju(petitioner) sustained injuries in – S.Naga Raju(petitioner) sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor bike bearing No.AP-28M 3280? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? iii) To what relief? 7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and come to a conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled for an compensation award of Rs.15,09,824/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that claimant did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle as on the date of accident and the petitioner is responsible for the accident and the Tribunal did not consider the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that after discharge from the hospital the claimant did not take any future treatment as advised by the doctors, and it clearly shows that the fractures/injuries received by the claimant were cured and the petitioner was doing normal work and is continuing his job without any help. 9. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that after discharge from the hospital the claimant did not take any future treatment as advised by the doctors, and it clearly shows that the fractures/injuries received by the claimant were cured and the petitioner was doing normal work and is continuing his job without any help. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company further contended that as per Ex.A7-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board that the claimant sustained 45% temporary disability and recommend for re-assessment of the injuries after two years, however the petitioner id not re-assess the injuries till date and have not filed latest disability certificate to prove that the petitioner has suffered 45% permanent disability, hence the learned Tribunal ought not have taken the 45% of disability while calculating the compensation award and further submits that the Ex.A7-Disabilty Certificate is issued for temporary disability and not for permanent disability and the learned Tribunal has also awarded enormous amounts among under other conventional heads, hence prayed this Court to set aside the Tribunal Award and allow the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant /respondent No.1 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 11. Heard, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar , learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Sudarshan Reddy , learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. Perused the entire material on record. 12. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed cross-appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimant appear to be satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Basing on the pleadings and material on record and considering the submission made by the counsels, the only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: “i) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation ii) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claimant petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded just compensation to the claimant.” Point No.1 & 2: 13. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered fracture and grievous injuries all over the body due to accident occurred on 16.12.2014 and he was admitted in the hospital from 16.12.2014 to 23.12.2024. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered fracture and grievous injuries all over the body due to accident occurred on 16.12.2014 and he was admitted in the hospital from 16.12.2014 to 23.12.2024. PW.3- Dr.Sharath Chandra, an Orthopedic Surgeon and consultant in Balaji Multi Specialty Hospital, submits that the petitioner was found to have fractures of 1) Lt.Tiba (2)Lt.Fibula(3) Lacerated wound Lt.hand and under went the following surgeries: (1) Inter Locking Nailing of Lt.Tibia (2) Rush Nailing of Fibula (3) Suturing of wound and the petitioner was admitted on 16.12.2014 and was discharged on 23.12.2014 in stable condition and had come for follow-up regularly and was advised rest for a period of three months after surgeries. 14. PW2-Dr.P.Madhusudan, Orthopedic Surgeon had categorically stated that petitioner was clinically and radiologically examined and found injuries to the left Lower Limb, impaired Reach (post Traumatic Sequel Limbs). Due to the injuries, the petitioner would be in difficulty in sitting, squatting and sitting with cross legs. Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2- Charge Sheet would clearly show that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., AP-28-M-3280, the petitioner met with an accident and suffered the above injuries. Hence, the respondent No.1-Driver of the Crime Vehicle and respondent No.2-Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of claimant and against the respondents. 15. As far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner examined PW4- B.Murali Reddy, HR Admn., in GST Contractors Pvt. Limited, Bowenpally and his testimony shows that the petitioner is their employee as machine operator working since 2013. Ex.X3 is the Identity Card of the petitioner, Ex.X4 is Bank Statement, Ex.A5 is salary slip. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence placed by the petitioner and basing on Ex.A5 i.e., Salary Certificate of the petitioner has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.10.115/- which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 16. Ex.X3 is the Identity Card of the petitioner, Ex.X4 is Bank Statement, Ex.A5 is salary slip. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence placed by the petitioner and basing on Ex.A5 i.e., Salary Certificate of the petitioner has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.10.115/- which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 16. The learned Tribunal has considered the disability of the petitioner @ 45% and calculate the loss of future earning on account of permanent disability by considering Ex.A7-Disability certificate, but on keen perusal of the Ex.A7, this Court finds that the Medical Board has stated in the disability certificate is issued in relation to disability of Left Lower Limb, Impaired reach, Post Traumatic Serqual-Limbs and not for whole body and further stated that petitioner can perform or discharge the following duties i. F-can perform work by manipulating with fingers, ii. PP – can perform work by pulling and pushing, iii. L-can perform work by lifting, iv. S-can perform work by sitting, v. ST-can perform work by standing, vi. V-can perform work by walking, vii. RW-can perform work by reading and writing. 17. It is pertinent to mention that in the Disability Certificate(Ex.A7), dated 12.08.2016, the Medical Board has recommended for re- assessment of the disability after a period of two years and issued the said ‘Temporary Disability Certificate’, however the learned Tribunal missed the said observation and taken the disability as permanent disability and compute the compensation. The petitioner has also not reassess the disability even after two years and not produced any disability certificate after reassessment before the learned Tribunal or in the Court. 18. In similar case, i.e., Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must distinguish between medical and functional disability. Even if a doctor certifies 45% disability, the Tribunal may reduce or increase the functional disability if the person can still perform gainful work and the relevant paragraph is extracted for ready reference hereunder: “The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%.” 19. Considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar’s case (cited above) and for the reasons stated in above paragraphs, the disability can be taken as ‘temporary disability’ and as such, this Court is inclined to reduced the disability of the petitioner from ‘45%’ to ‘20%’ for calculating loss of future earning on account of disability. The learned Tribunal has awarded an compensation under ‘Medical Bills’, ‘Future Treatment’, ‘Pain and Sufferance’, ‘Extra- Nourishment’, Transportation Charges, Mental Agony, ‘Attendant Charges’ and ‘Damages to Clothes’ appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 20. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 and considering the age of the petitioner as 25 years which is not disputed by either of the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs.14,161/- (Rs.10,115/- + Rs.4,046/-). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,69,932/- (Rs.14,161/- X 12). Thus the loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 20% would come to Rs.33,986/- (1,69,932 x 20%). 21. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs.14,161/- (Rs.10,115/- + Rs.4,046/-). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,69,932/- (Rs.14,161/- X 12). Thus the loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 20% would come to Rs.33,986/- (1,69,932 x 20%). 21. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] , and considering the age of the petitioner as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner aged group between 21-25 years is ‘18’. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.6,11,748/- (33,986 x 18). 22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated for the reasons stated above and given in the table below for easy reference. Head Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Loss of future earning on account of disability Rs.13,76,449/- (14,161 x 12 x 45% x 18) Rs.6,11,755/- (14,161 x 12 x 20% x 18) Medical Bills 1,375/- 1,375/- Future treatment 25,000/- 25,000/- Pain and sufferance 25,000/- 25,000/- Extra-Nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/- Transportation Charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Mental Agony 50,000/- 50,000/- Attendant Charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Damage to Clothes 2,000/- 2,000/- Total Rs. 15,09,824/- Rs. 7,45,130/- 23. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by reducing the compensation from Rs.15,09,824/- to Rs.7,45,130/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Forty Five Thousand and One Hundred and Thirty Rupees only) with 7.5 % p.a. inertest from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such, deposit the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any surety. It is made clear if the claimant has already withdrawn the excess compensation amount, the respondents therein are not liable to recover the same from the claimant. 24. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.