JUDGMENT: B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act, 1988’) assailing the Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad, in O.P.No.1446 of 2002 dated 24.04.2006. 2. Appellant is the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.P.No.1446 of 2002. 3.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166(1) (a) of the M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of APMV rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 3.2. It is stated in the claim petition that on 21.09.2002 at about 10.30 a.m., while the appellant-petitioner was going on his cycle from Saleem farm to Navipet, on the way when he reached Abangapatnam village shivar, the driver of a jeep bearing No.AP25U3056 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the cycle of the appellant- petitioner due to which he fell down and sustained fracture to left hand and injuries to shoulders, head, chest and legs and he was shifted to Government hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. Later he was admitted in private hospital as inpatient and took treatment. Appellant-petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment and still he is taking treatment before private Doctors. Due to the injuries to the right eye, appellant-petitioner is unable to see and due to injury to nose, he is unable to breath properly and due to fracture of left hand and injuries to shoulders, he is unable to attend his regular work and sustained permanent disability. 3.3. Appellant-petitioner was attending agriculture works and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and also doing milk vending business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and he was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,80,000/- under various heads but he has restricted his claim for Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum and prayed to allow the O.P as prayed for. 4.1. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. 4.2. 4.1. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. 4.2. Respondent No.2 has filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place, the age and income of the appellant-petitioner and also contended that the claim made by the appellant-petitioner is excessive out of all proportions and prayed to dismiss the OP. 5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues. i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? ii. To what relief? 6. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 – Dr. L. Ramulu and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No oral evidence is adduced by the respondent No.2 and no documents are marked. 7. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellant-petitioner with that of the documents marked thereon has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal failed to decide the quantum of compensation and has not taken into consideration the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A8. Learned Tribunal also failed to see that the appellant- petitioner has incurred an amount of more than Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and age of the appellant-petitioner is 18 years as on the date of accident, he was hale and healthy and due to injuries and fracture, he has sustained permanent disability. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards injuries and loss of income. Appellant-petitioner is entitled for the same and prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Notice got issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal is served on 12.12.2008. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has filed calculation memo in support of his contention. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and perused the material on record. 12. 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 requires interference of this Court? Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner has challenged the quantum in the appeal. 14.1. 12. 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 requires interference of this Court? Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner has challenged the quantum in the appeal. 14.1. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that he was working as agriculture laborer and milk vendor, earning Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively and his total income was Rs.9,000/-. Ex.A3-wound certificate goes to show that appellant-petitioner has received one grievous injury i.e., below left eye and one simple injury i.e., chest injury. Appellant-petitioner has examined PW-2- Dr.L.Ramulu, his evidence is that he was working as Orthopedic Doctor, Kaleelpwadi, Nizamabad since 1995 and he was dealing with Orthopedic cases. On 10.11.2002, he examined Budike Nagesh, S/o Anandam, aged about 19 years and found the following injuries: 1. Malunited fracture of maxilla and disfiguration of face. Hence, he got 45% permanent partial disability movement of maxilla are painful and restricted from movement are painful. Patient cannot speak, lower jaw and upper jaw are painful and he issued Ex.A8-disability certificate. In his cross examination, he stated that as per Ex.A3-wound certificate, which was issued by Government Hospital, Nizamabad, it reveals two injuries i.e., one grievous injury i.e., below left eye and one simple injury on chest and he has not treated the patient and examined him orally. 14.2. In so far as the evidence of PW-2 with that of Ex.A8 is concerned, learned Tribunal has observed in its order in page No.6 as under: “There is a direction from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal against Order No.3518 of 2004 to the Chairman, M.A.C.T., Nizamabad not to act solely on the evidence of Dr. L.Ramulu (PW-2) while awarding compensation in claim petitions pending for consideration before them. Therefore, in the absence of any corroboration in the evidence of PW-2, I am not inclined to accept the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A8 with regard to the disability to the petitioner assessed by him”. 15. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner has not placed any material before this Court why the evidence of PW2 cannot be considered. Hence, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the evidence of PW-2 with that of Ex.A8. 16. 15. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner has not placed any material before this Court why the evidence of PW2 cannot be considered. Hence, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the evidence of PW-2 with that of Ex.A8. 16. Appellant-petitioner has taken treatment from 21.09.2002 to 24.09.2002 for a period of four days. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner during the course of arguments submits that the appellant-petitioner has taken treatment in a private hospital and in total, his loss of income is calculated for 30 days. 17. The evidence of appellant-PW-1 is that he was working as agriculture labour and earning Rs.4,000/- per month apart from that he was a milk vendor and earning Rs.5,000/- on milk vending business. In total, his earning was Rs.9,000/- per month. This Court is of the view that appellant-petitioner’s earning is to be taken as Rs.3,000/- on agriculture and Rs.2,000/- on milk vending business. Hence his monthly earning is to be taken as Rs.5,000/-. 18. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the injuries sustained by the appellant-petitioner and did not award any amount towards extra nourishment, transportation and attendance charges. 19. Calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income (one month) Rs.5,000/- 2. One grievous injury Rs.30,000/- 3. One simple injury Rs.10,000/- 4. Transportation charges Rs.5,000/- 5. Extra nourishment charges Rs.5,000/- 6. Attendance charges Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.60,000/- 19. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 20. In the result, MACMA.No.3903 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 24.04.2006, passed in O.P.No.1446 of 2002, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.20,000/- is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- together with 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. 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.