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 - cum - XI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.609 of2010 dated 24.01.2014. 2. Appellant herein is the petitioner and respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party in the appeal. 4.1 Appellant – petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140(c) and 166 of the MV Act read with Rules 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the realization of the claim for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 4.2 On 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 a.m., the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-25B-9865 parked his lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and not given any indications of parking in front of Shiva Enclave, Kaveli, Kohir Mandal, Medak district. Due to wrong parking of the lorry, the appellant – petitioner who was riding his motor cycle hit the stationed lorry, as a result he sustained both bones fractures of left leg, fractures to right leg and right hand and multiple fracture injuries all over the body, he was shifted to Mythri Hospital at Kukatpally, R.R. District and later shifted to NIMS hospital Panjagutta, Hyderabad where he was treated as inpatient. On the complaint a case in Crime No.32/2010 under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC is registered against the driver of the crime vehicle by Kohir police. By the date of accident appellant – petitioner was aged about 21 years, working as labourer and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, due to accident he suffered a lot and prayed to award compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 5.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. By the date of accident appellant – petitioner was aged about 21 years, working as labourer and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, due to accident he suffered a lot and prayed to award compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 5.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the appellant – petitioner as such he is not entitled for any compensation, the owner and insurer of the vehicle are necessary parties and the O.P. is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Further it denied the age and income of the deceased. 6. Appellant – petitioner has initially filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in total under different heads and thereafter, he amended the claim petition vide I.A.No.1011 of 2012 which was allowed on 23.01.2013 and claimed enhanced compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP MH 25B – 9865 by parking lorry without parking indications? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 8. Appellant – petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – Dr.Chandrasekhar, PW3 – C.Nagesh and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent No.2 did not choose to lead evidence, but got marked Exs.B1 and B2. 9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of the appellant - petitioner coupled with the documents marked thereon has awarded compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- but as there is contributory negligence on the part of the appellant – petitioner has reduced the amount to 50% and awarded compensation at Rs.1,33,800/- rounded off to Rs.1,35,000/- and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that appellant – petitioner has also contributed to the accident and thereby wrongly reduced the amount to 50%. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that appellant – petitioner has also contributed to the accident and thereby wrongly reduced the amount to 50%. The learned Tribunal failed to see that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant – petitioner, failed to see that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted due to the accident caused by him, ought to have considered the disability of the appellant – petitioner at 60% as per Ex.A10 – handicapped certificate with that of the evidence of PW2, erred in saying that the disability certificate is not issued by the Medical Board of NIMS Hospital consisting three qualified doctors and members, erred in taking the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.6,500/- per month, also erred in awarding less compensation under different heads and prayed to enhance the amount. 11. Notice got issued to respondent No.2 in the appeal is served on 25.09.2014, but none appeared for them. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed calculation memo 13. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the appellant – petitioner is entitled for just compensation, if so, to what amount? ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.609 of 2010 dated 24.01.2014 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. Learned Tribunal has not considered Ex.A10 – handicapped certificate got issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on the premise that the appellant – petitioner has not obtained the certificate from Medical Board of NIMS Hospital as Ex.A12 contradicts with the evidence of PW3. 17. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant – petitioner at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month as he was unable to do work for one year arrived at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 1 year). Further the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.1,23,558/- rounded off to Rs.1,23,600/- towards medical bills and arrived at Rs.2,67,600/-. Further the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.1,23,558/- rounded off to Rs.1,23,600/- towards medical bills and arrived at Rs.2,67,600/-. As there is contributory negligence on the part of the appellant – petitioner, reduced the amount to 50% and awarded Rs.1,33,800/- as compensation. 18.1 Janimiya, father of the appellant – petitioner has lodged a complaint on 30.03.2010 before PS Kohir about the manner in which the accident has occurred. PS Kohir basing on the said complaint has registered the case in FIR No.32/2010 dated 30.03.2010 against the driver of Lorry bearing No.MH-25-B-9865 under Sections 304(A) and 338 of IPC. 18.2 Ex.A2 is the C.C of charge sheet in FIR No.32/2010 which is filed against the driver of the crime vehicle. The investigation reveals that the driver of the crime vehicle has carelessly and neglectfully parked his lorry bearing No.MH-25-B-9865 on the NH9 road and he failed to put on indicators and signals, then being it’s a cloudy weather and thick darkness, appellant – petitioner who was driving the bike did not see the lorry then he dashed the same, caused severe injuries and was shifted to hospital. Further Ex.A2 clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, who negligently parked his lorry on the NH9 road. Police has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and arrived at a conclusion that it is the negligence of the driver of the lorry, who parked the same on the NH9 road and failed to put indicators and signals. 18.3 The conclusion of the Tribunal that the appellant – petitioner has contributed in the accident and reducing the compensation to 50% is perverse in view of the fact that Ex.A2 – C.C. of charge sheet is staring against the driver of the crime vehicle holding him responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has rightly arrived the income of the appellant – petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month as a labourer and this Court is not interfering in the said aspect. The Tribunal has rightly arrived the income of the appellant – petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month as a labourer and this Court is not interfering in the said aspect. 18.4 The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is also not disturbed 19.1 PW2 – Dr.Chandrasekhar deposed that he is working in Gandhi Hospital for the last eight years, he is the Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, he is one of the board members and Ex.A10 – handicapped certificate is issued by the Medical Board on 22.10.2010, the disability was 60% and the patient needs some support to walk. 19.2 In his cross – examination he stated that he has not treated the patient, nor has seen him personally after the accident, has seen the patient in medical board and assessed the disability. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A10 is issued to help the appellant – petitioner. He further stated in his cross examination that Ex.A10 does not show the movements of limbs and strengths and he denied the suggestion that the patient cannot do his work as earlier. 20. On perusal of Ex.A10, which is issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, on 22.10.2010, the disability assessed is 60% of Crippled (deformed in any part of the body other than legs and is disabled). 21. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration Ex.A12 - photo with negatives which shows that there was rod fixed to the left leg and has not relied on Ex.A10 – handicapped certificate on the ground that the appellant – petitioner has not approached the Medical Board of NIMS Hospital for disability certificate. The finding of the Tribunal is perverse. The evidence of PW2 – Dr.Chandrasekhar supports the case of the appellant – petitioner that Ex.A10 – handicapped certificate was issued after examining the patient and it is signed by the Chairman, Medical Board with that of two other members. This Court is of the view that the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A10 goes to show that the appellant – petitioner is a disabled person and since the appellant – petitioner is a labourer, this Court fixes the disability at 30% in view of the decision of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. This Court is of the view that the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A10 goes to show that the appellant – petitioner is a disabled person and since the appellant – petitioner is a labourer, this Court fixes the disability at 30% in view of the decision of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar , AIR 2020 SC 4424 22.1 Ex.A4 – C.C. of injury certificate dated 30.03.2010 issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Zaheerabad, goes to show that appellant – petitioner has received (i) contusion on left leg below knee and (ii) contusion on left chest, both are simple in nature and (iii) grade II compound fracture both bones left leg diffused axonal injury, (iv) right sided hemiplegia and (v) blunt injury chest for which ICD is done, all the three injuries are grievous in nature. 22.2 Ex.A5 is the discharge record issued by Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, dated 24.04.2010, which goes to show that appellant – petitioner is admitted on 31.03.2010 and discharged on 24.04.2010. In the clinical summary it is mentioned that appellant – petitioner has received head injury, grade II compound fracture of both bones left leg. 22.3 PW3 – Dr.C.Nagesh who is the Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedic, NIMS deposed that the patient [appellant – petitioner] has sustained grievous injuries (i) head injury, (ii) diffused axonol injury, (iii) blunt injury chest and (iv)grade II compound fracture both bones left leg. 22.4 Taking into consideration Ex.A4 – C.C. of injury certificate and Ex.A5 – discharge record with that of the evidence of PW3, this Court is of the view that appellant – petitioner has received three grievous injuries and two simple injuries, for which he is entitled for compensation. 23. The age of the appellant – petitioner is shows on 19 years in Ex.A4 – C.C of injury certificate, 18 years in Ex.A5 discharge record, 20 years in Ex.A10 – handipcapped certificate and 21 years in the claim petition. Hence the age of the appellant – petitioner is taken as 21 years for calculating the income and disability. 24. As the appellant is below 40 years, 40% of future prospects should be added as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 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). 24. As the appellant is below 40 years, 40% of future prospects should be added as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 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 21 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 30% disability is taken loss of income due to disability would be Rs.4,08,240/- (13,60,800 x 30%). 25. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Hence points are answered accordingly. 26. In the result, MACMA.No.3164 of 2008 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 24.01.2014, passed in O.P.No.609 of 2010, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,35,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,85,840/- together with interest at the rate of 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 his entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.