JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Nizamabad in OP No.2048 of 2001, dated 01.04.2008. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the Appeal. 3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the O.P. 4.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 (i)(a) of the M.V. Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization for the injury sustained by him in the accident. 4.2. It is stated in the petition that on 31.10.2001 while the appellant- petitioner was proceeding towards the Market and when he reached near N.J. Complex at 10.30 P.M., meanwhile Jeep bearing No.APC 5857 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and dashed the appellant-petitioner due to which he sustained injuries all over the body. He was taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad where he was treated as inpatient and thereafter he has taken treatment with Private Doctors and has incurred an amount of Rs.1 Lakh. Appellant-petitioner was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident (31.10.2001) and was earning Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month by running Kirana and General Stores. Due to the accident he has sustained permanent disability and unable to do the work as usual, prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age and income of the appellant-petitioner, it is the appellant-petitioner who contributed to the accident by negligently walking on the road, prayed to dismiss the OP. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No.APC 5857 by its driver as per? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No.APC 5857 by its driver as per? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 - Dr.L.Ramalu, got marked Exs.A1 to A27. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence but got marked Exs.B1 and B2. 9. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the appellant with that of the exhibits marked thereon has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.5,000/- each for two grievous injuries and failed to consider the evidence of PW.2 who stated that the appellant- petitioner has suffered 50% permanent disability and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as prayed for. The Tribunal has not awarded amounts as claimed under different heads. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of MD.Raheem Vs. L.Bhoom Rao and Another , MACMA No.1709 of 2010, dated 08.11.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed Calculation Memo showing the enhancement of compensation. 13. Heard learned counsel, perused the material on record. 14. Now the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the appellant-petitioner was awarded just compensation? If so? (2) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? Point Nos.1 and 2 15. Appellant-petitioner has challenged the quantum in the Appeal. 16. The compensation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: 17. In MD Raheem 1 , this Court has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards Litigation fees in view of the principles laid down in V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and Another , 22014 (5) ALD 42 SC. 18. 16. The compensation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: 17. In MD Raheem 1 , this Court has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards Litigation fees in view of the principles laid down in V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and Another , 22014 (5) ALD 42 SC. 18. Ex.A3 is the C.C. of Injury certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Nizamabad which shows fracture of both bones left leg which are grievous in nature and Ex.A5-Medical certificate also shows that the appellant-petitioner has received two grievous injuries. Ex.A6 is the receipt issued by Sri Maithri Hospital which shows the amount of Rs.14,850/- towards treatment of the appellant- petitioner. It is mentioned in Ex.A5-Medical certificate and Ex.A6- Receipt that the appellant-petitioner was admitted on 01.11.2001 and discharged on 20.11.2001 i.e. 20 days. This Court is of the view that the appellant-petitioner has received two grievous injuries and entitle for Medical expenses of Rs.14,850/-. 19.1. PW2-Dr. L.Ramalu deposed that on 08.06.2002 he has examined Sirajuddin, son of Khaja Mohinuddin, aged 26 years, resident of Navipet, clinically and physically verified his previous records and issued Ex.A27-Disability certificate/Handicap certificate showing the disability at 50% i.e., permanent partial disability for malunited fractures of both bones of left leg and these injuries are possible in motor vehicle accident. Disability certificate issued by him under Ex.A27 is corresponding to Exs.A3 and A5 and the appellant-petitioner cannot do any hard work and cannot walk for a long time, so also cannot stand for a long period. 19.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the appellant-petitioner has approached him after six months of the accident for the purpose of Disability certificate. There is a Medical Board at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and he is not a member of the said Board. He denied the suggestion that the appellant-petitioner is all right and he can do all his normal works as usual. 20. Though PW.2 deposed that appellant-petitioner has sustained 50% permanent partial disability for Malunited fractures of both bones of left leg, this Court fixes the disability at 15% in view of the decision of the Three Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pappu deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others , (2022) 13 SCC 790 . 21. The learned Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- as the income of the appellant-petitioner. Naresh Kumar and Others , (2022) 13 SCC 790 . 21. The learned Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- as the income of the appellant-petitioner. It is the evidence of the appellant-petitioner that he is running Kirana and General Stores and that he is earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. This Court is of the view that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is on the lower side and this Court fixes the monthly income of the appellant-petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month. The loss of earning of the appellant-petitioner is taken for 20 days. As per Exs.A5 and A6, appellant-petitioner was discharged after 20 days of his admission and this Court fixes the loss of income of the appellant-petitioner for 30 days. The age of the appellant-petitioner is shown as 25 years in the claim petition and 21 years in Ex.A2-CC of charge sheet, 26 years in Ex.A27-Handicap certificate, hence the age of the appellant is taken as 25 years and he is in the age group of 21 to 25 years and appropriate multiplier to calculate the disability is ‘18’. He is also entitled for future prospects at 40% as he is self-employed in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 22. As the appellant is below 40 years, 40% of future prospects should be added as per Pranay Sethi5 which comes to Rs.1,800/- (4,500 x 40%) and the monthly income of the appellant is Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1,800). Annual salary comes to Rs.75,600/- (6,300 x 12). As the appellant is aged about 25 years as on the date of accident appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ as per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which comes to Rs.13,60,800/- (75,600 x 18). If 15% disability is taken loss of income due to disability would be Rs.2,04,120/- (13,60,800 x 15%). 23. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation 1. Fracture of both bones left leg (2) grievous injuries @ Rs.25,000/- each Rs. 50,000/- 2. Disability (4,500 + 40%/1800 x 12 x 18 x 15% Rs.2,04,120/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 14,850/- 4. Transportation & attendant charges Rs. 6,000/- 5. Loss of Income for a period of one month Rs. 4,500/- 6. Litigation Fees Rs. 5,000/- 7. Pain & Suffering Rs. Fracture of both bones left leg (2) grievous injuries @ Rs.25,000/- each Rs. 50,000/- 2. Disability (4,500 + 40%/1800 x 12 x 18 x 15% Rs.2,04,120/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 14,850/- 4. Transportation & attendant charges Rs. 6,000/- 5. Loss of Income for a period of one month Rs. 4,500/- 6. Litigation Fees Rs. 5,000/- 7. Pain & Suffering Rs. 40,000/- 8. Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.3,34,470/- 24. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , 62022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 . Hence, points are answered accordingly. 25. In the result, MACMA.No.3584 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 01.04.2008, passed in O.P.No.2048 of 2001, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.3,34,470/- together with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellant-petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.