THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No. 1695 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been directed against the award, dated 05-06-2003 in O.P.No.759 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that when the claimant was crossing the road near Chodavaram village on NH 5 road, for water, one Jeep bearing Regn. No.AP 30A 6195 dashed against him and due to which he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was admitted into hospital for treatment. Hence, he filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent-claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, he himself examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant. Challenging the same, the appellants-State filed the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the accident was not caused due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and that the age of the claimant is only 18 years, therefore, he would not get income at Rs.50/- per day. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned award. 7. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that on 09-08-2000 at 2 p.m. when the 1st respondent was going on the left side of the road, a jeep bearing Regn. No.AP 30A 6195 came from back side and dashed against him near Chodamma Agraharam village and as a result of which he sustained injuries. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. Further, the police registered a case against the driver of the jeep in Crime No.78 of 2000 of Pusapatirega Police Station and Ex.A-1 is the First Information Report. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that when the 1st respondent was going on the left of the road, the offending vehicle came from backside and dashed against him. When a person going on the left side of the road by following the rules, there is no other reason for the driver of any vehicle to dash such persons. In those circumstances, rashness or negligence can be attributed to the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident. 8. Coming to the percentage of disability, Ex.A-7 is the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board which shows that the 1st respondent-claimant sustained 50% disability. The disability as mentioned in Ex.A-7 was not taken into consideration for the reason that the doctor, who is the orthopaedic surgeon and issued Ex.A-7, was not examined. But, however, the percentage of disability was taken at 25% which is partial permanent disability. Further, the petitioner was in-patient for the period from 09-08-2000 to 22-09-2000 in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, as he sustained two injuries; one the fracture of left femur, and another is simple injury. He underwent operation for insertion of plates. Again he underwent another operation for removal of the plates. The Tribunal while awarding compensation, has taken the annual income of the 1st respondent-claimant as Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopted the multiplier as ‘16’ and that the percentage of disability is taken as 25% and accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards partial and permanent disability. The Tribunal also granted Rs.6,500/- towards pain and suffering. So far as medical expenses, transport to the hospital and extra nourishment are concerned, the claimant claimed Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.3,500/- on this head. Hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was granted towards total compensation. 9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and the said award need not be interfered with by this Court. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________ 8th August 2011 kvr