JUDGMENT : THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO, J. 1. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the appellant and Ms.M.Deepa, learned Counsel representing Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the claimants, and perused the entire material available on record. 2. Dissatisfied with the order, dated 07.06.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2014, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering the evidence and written statement filed by the APSRTC, refuting the contentions raised by the claimants in the M.V.O.P. In support of his arguments, he has taken the Court to the grounds urged in the appeal. Ground No.3, particularly, is adhered to the contention that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP03 K 0986 and that the M.V.O.P. ought to have been dismissed by the Tribunal for non-joinder of the parties i.e., owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle, as respondents. 4. Ms.M.Deepa, learned counsel, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for no interference since the evidence was perfectly considered by the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the medical bills and correctly applying the multiplier method as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2009 (3) ACC 708 (SC) . She further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same needs no interference. 6. This Court, after hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side, finds it appropriate to place the facts of the case. The contour of facts leading to the case are as follows: The accident occurred on 12.10.2013 at about 1.15 P.M., when the claimant and her father and mother were proceeding on a Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP03 K 0986 and when they reached near TTD Kalyana Mandapam, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z5737 came on rear side of the Motor Cycle, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the Motor Cycle on which the claimant and others were travelling. Due to that impact, the claimant fell down from the Motor Cycle, thereupon received fatal injuries and immediately she was shifted to Area hospital, Madanapalle and, on the advice of the Duty Doctor, she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bangalore, where she was treated from 12.10.2013 to 26.10.2013 as in- patient and spent nearly Rs.5.00 lakhs towards her treatment. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 18 months baby and due to the accident she is unable to walk and work properly. A case was registered by the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Madanapalle as Cr.No.209 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the driver, Madduri Thyagaraja Reddy, of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5737 and the same is pending adjudication before the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle. 7. In oppugnation, the respondents filed written statements before the Court below countenancing that the motorcyclist lost control over the two-wheeler near the pit (near Santha Gate) and fell down in front of the service bus, as a result of which the claimant sustained simple injuries. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The first respondent reiterated that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and, on that ground, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. The guardian of the claimant, in order to substantiate his claim before the Tribunal, got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.X1 was marked through P.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, second respondent herein was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 9. Based on the contentions and the pleadings, the Court below, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 11 Z 5737 resulting which injuries caused to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed for ? 3. To what relief? 10. The Court below, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 11. The Court below appointed an Advocate-Commissioner, Dr.Arun L.Naik, Neuro Consultant at Apollo Hospital, who was examined as P.W.2. The Court below, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 11. The Court below appointed an Advocate-Commissioner, Dr.Arun L.Naik, Neuro Consultant at Apollo Hospital, who was examined as P.W.2. His examination revealed that the victim sustained grievous injuries on the head and left shoulder region and the left shoulder showed complete dissociation with significant bone loss and large open wound and she underwent treatment in the form of three successive surgeries on 12.10.2013, 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013. Skin grafting was also done and later she was discharged on 28.10.2013. Ex.X1 is the Discharge Summary which records that the external wounds were healed, but internal deficits will persist which may hamper certain activities and also cosmetic prance and significant disability may limit certain professions in the future like sports, military etc., and that future surgeries are required like tendon transfer surgeries, limb-lengthening and plastic surgery. As per Ex.A5- Physical Disability Certificate, the claimant’s permanent physical disability was assessed at 45%. By taking into consideration the evidence, the Court below held that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the Claimant. 12. With regard to Issue No.2, the Court below found in favour of the claimant and answered the issue accordingly. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, upon considering the substantial evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,35,474/- under the following heads: S. No Description Amount 1. Medical bills Rs.3,20,474-00 2. Transportation charges Rs.5,000-00 3. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000-00 4. Pain and sufferings for 4 grievous injuries (Rs.25000/-X4) Rs.1,00,000-00 5. Loss of prospective marriage Rs.1,00,000-00 6. Loss of prospective job Rs.1,00,000-00 7. Attendant charges Rs.5,000-00 Total Rs.6,35,474-00 14. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,35,474/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum until the date of deposit and held the respondents liable for payment of the said amount. 15. This Court, after considering the arguments, advanced by both the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents, is of the considered opinion that the Award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and is well placed and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. 15. This Court, after considering the arguments, advanced by both the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents, is of the considered opinion that the Award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and is well placed and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. In fine, the Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 07.06.2017, in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.