JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. We have heard Mr.Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) appearing for the appellants and Sri P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (claimant), and perused the record. 2. The present MACMA is filed by the Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 22-08-2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.1945 of 2013 in allowing the claim of the claimant and awarding compensation of Rs.33,87,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% p.a. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the OP by the claimant before the learned Tribunal are that on 24-11-2012 at about 16-00 hours when the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-11R-5152 along with his wife Smt.C.Narasamma as pillion rider from Pahadishareef side towards Uppuguda, Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on the extreme left side of road, and when they reached Barkas CRPF Gate, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5427 came in opposite direction, the driver of the said bus drove the bus in high speed, in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, lost control over the bus and dashed the claimant’s motor cycle in opposite direction, on account of which, the claimant and his wife fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant and his wife were immediately shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the claimant was admitted as inpatient on 25-11-2012, and later claimant was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad for better treatment, he was again admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery on 26-11-2012 on spinal anesthesia, wound debridement and ORIF with istal femur LCP. 4. The claimant, at the time of incident, was working as Government employee in Water Works Department drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and used to contribute his entire earnings for maintenance of his family, thereby the claimant filed the OP claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 5. Per contra, the Corporation filed counter-affidavit in the OP denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 6. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? 5. Per contra, the Corporation filed counter-affidavit in the OP denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 6. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? And if so, from whom, and 2. To what relief? 7. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant herein, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked, whereas on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, none were examined nor any documents were marked. 8. During examination, P.W.1 who is the claimant, stated that while he was proceeding on his motor cycle along with his wife Smt.C.Narasamma as pillion rider from Pahadishareef side towards Uppuguda, Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on extreme left side, the driver of the Corporation bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5427 came in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and dashed his motor cycle, on account of which, he sustained fracture injuries and underwent treatment in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad as Inpatient. 9. P.W.2 Dr.G.Subash Rao, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Doctor’s Multi Specialty Hospital, Dilsukhnagar stated that on examination of the claimant, he found that the patient received compound Comminuted Super Condylar fracture of right femur and Comminuted fracture of right scapula thereby P.W.1 developed malunion and unable to sit and squat, and walk for long distance and do heavy works, thereby assessing the disability as 50% partial and permanent in nature. During cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that there is no scope for reduction of disability in future. 10. During the examination of P.W.3, who is Senior Officer in Finance and Accounts working in Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Department at Narayanaguda, stated that the claimant’s date of birth is 15-08-1965 and during the month of November, 2012, the claimant was drawing monthly salary of Rs.28,136/-. In order to prove the same, Ex.A-10 pay slip of the claimant was marked. 11. The record speaks that on account of the accident, the claimant was unable to discharge his duties for a total of 182 days. As per the nature and grade of job of the claimant, it involves field works like going into the manholes whenever drainage was stuck, and after the accident, the claimant is unable to do hard work nor getting into the drainage manholes. 12. As per the nature and grade of job of the claimant, it involves field works like going into the manholes whenever drainage was stuck, and after the accident, the claimant is unable to do hard work nor getting into the drainage manholes. 12. During the examination of P.W.4, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Yashoda Hospital deposed that the claimant sustained grade-II compound supra cundylar fracture of right femur and comminuted fracture right scapula and he was operated and plating was done for his fracture, that the injuries are grievous in nature and due to injuries, the claimant has permanent restriction of movement and pain in right knee. He further deposed that he examined the claimant clinically and assessed the disability at 30%, which is partial and permanent in nature and issued Ex.X-1 certificate. P.W.4 categorically stated that the claimant cannot discharge his normal work and is not in a position to sit without any support. In order to prove the same, he submitted Ex.A-11 X-Ray films along with Exs.A-5 and A-6 which are the discharge summary and bills of the hospital. 13. The Tribunal held that as per the evidence of the doctors, their assessment of disability is contradicting with each other. Since, Ex.A-8 disability certificate issued by P.W.2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon in Multispecialty Hospital, estimated the disability as 30% of partial and permanent nature, thereby the learned Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the claimant as 47 years at the time of accident and multiplier 13, which is applicable for the age group of 46-50 years as well as taking into consideration of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma Vs. Delh Transport Corporation , [ 2009(6) SCC 121 ] and considering the future prospects along with other entitlements, the compensation was rounded to Rs.27,37,800/-. 14. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal further held that the claimant is also entitled for future operation and medical expenses including pain and suffering and mental agony, for extra nourishment, travelling and attendant charges, thereby held that the claimant is entitled for Rs.33,87,000/- in all. 15. On perusal of the record speaks that admittedly, the Corporation did not adduce any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability. It is not disputed even during the course of evidence. 16. 15. On perusal of the record speaks that admittedly, the Corporation did not adduce any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability. It is not disputed even during the course of evidence. 16. Sri S.Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal failed to assign any specific finding or reasoning with respect to the issue of fault or liability, whether it was the negligence of the injured or the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Corporation. 17. It was further contended that Exs.A-8 and X-1 were marked in order to prove the disability, whereas Ex.A-8 disability certificate was assessed as 50% while as per Ex.X-1 it was assessed as 30%. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal despite making observations regarding both the exhibits, proceeded to calculate the loss of earning by considering the disability to be 50% without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that Ex.A-8 relies on Kessler guidelines while Ex.X-1 relies on McBride guidelines, however, key differences column in the document, Kessler relies on questionnaire while McBride relies on physical examination. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the certificate which is relied upon based on the McBride guidelines. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal in spite of awarding loss of earnings under para-23, had once again awarded loss of earnings of Rs.2,00,000/- in para-24 including awarding of Rs.50,000/- towards future operation solely relying on the oral evidence of the Doctor. Therefore, he contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability @ 30% and ought not to have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of earnings once again and Rs.50,000/- towards future operation. Therefore, he pleaded for interference by this Court. 19. Per contra, Sri P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence on record including the disability certificates i.e. Exs.A-8 and X-1 and held that as per Ex.A-8, the disability suffered by the claimant to be 50% as per Kessler guidelines. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that Ex.X-1 was issued by P.W.2 assessing the disability at 30% and the same was assessed taking into consideration of McBride guidelines. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that Ex.X-1 was issued by P.W.2 assessing the disability at 30% and the same was assessed taking into consideration of McBride guidelines. It was further contended that the Kessler and McBride guidelines are different approaches to assessing the disability. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and when two views are possible, the view in favour of the victim should be considered as per the judgment in Bhupati Prameela and others Vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others , [ 2010(4) ALD 531 (DB).] 21. The Kessler and McBride guidelines are different approaches to assessing disability, more particularly, in the context of workplace injuries or accidents. Kessler’s guidelines often associated with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10/K6), focus on evaluating psychological distress and its impact on daily functioning. The Kesslear formula is a method used to calculate the overall percentage of permanent physical impairment (PPI) in motor accident claims, specifically for injuries involving multiple affected areas or body parts as well as to calculate the psychological distress scale. The McBride guidelines contemplate in respect of the workers’ compensation system and involve assessing the physical impairment resulting from an injury and its impact on the ability to perform work tasks. The methodology involves a detailed examination of the injured area, including the range of motion, strength and other functional limitations. The McBride formula refers to a method which is used to assess compensation for loss of dependency particularly when calculating future loss of earnings. It is based on the factors like diseased age, income and number of dependents, to determine the total compensation amount while the Kessler formula is used to account for the combined effect of impairments and the impact on overall functionality. 22. Upon perusal of Ex.A-8, the learned Tribunal held that the respondent/claimant is suffering from 50% permanent disability taking into consideration the guidelines of Kessler whereas Ex.X-1 shows 30% disability, which is assessed as per McBride scale. 23. Considering the above aspects, this Court holds that despite the appellant’s claim that the age and salary of the victim had been amplified, it cannot be denied that the claimant did suffer the injuries and lost his earning capacity permanently. 23. Considering the above aspects, this Court holds that despite the appellant’s claim that the age and salary of the victim had been amplified, it cannot be denied that the claimant did suffer the injuries and lost his earning capacity permanently. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that the psychological stress undergone by the claimant and his family had to be taken into account while calculating the compensation. 24. Without going into the technicalities, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation and when there are different views that can be taken, the one which is more beneficial to the victim should prevail 25. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 26. With the above observations, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs. 27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. 28. However, we appreciate the persuasion made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.