IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2706 of 2001 & 3262 of 2001 C.M.A.No.2706 of 2001 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Seelam Obaiah .. Respondent C.M.A.No.3262 of 2001 Between: Seelam Obaiah .. Appellant AND The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, in O.P.No.557 of 1996 on 29-12-2000. The petitioner in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal was travelling by APSRTC Bus No.AP.9-Z-3875 on 24-07-1995 and when the bus reached the road from Nabikot Junction to Laxmi Ranga Theatre Junction in Cuddapah town, the driver had driven the bus rashly and negligently giving jolts to the passengers and the petitioner sustained a fracture due to his being thrown up and falling down resulting in compression of D-12 Vertebra and severe pain in the spinal cord. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Cuddapah, by 12-15 P.M. and the Taluk police recorded the statement of the petitioner on the requisition from the Hospital. As there was fracture of anterior vedge and compression of D-12 Vertebra, there was failure of both kidneys of the petitioner and stoppage of passing of urine. The petitioner was shifted to Ruya Hospital, Tirupathi on 25-07-1995 since when the petitioner was unable to move or pass urine without external intervention. Further representations were made to the police by the petitioner and his brother and the petitioner then aged 27 years was earning not less than Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day by doing business in plastic toys. The petitioner has to maintain his daughter aged 7 years; mother aged 62 years and his wife. Hence, he filed the claim for compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. The Corporation resisted the claim contending that the petitioner had to prove his travel by the bus on that day and the simple and curable injuries led neither to any permanent disability nor any loss to earning capacity and the compensation claimed is excessive. The absence of any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus should result in dismissal of the petition with costs. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation and the quantum thereof. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 6 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award extensively referring to the pleadings and evidence on record and noted that the evidence of PW.2, who travelled in the same bus, corroborated the claims of the injured petitioner as PW.1 in all material particulars. The Tribunal also noted the evidence of PW.4, the police constable, about the information from PW.1 about the accident at the earliest point of time and the evidence of PW.5, the doctor, who treated the petitioner at the Government Head quarters at Cuddapah. The Tribunal further noted the denials of RW.1, the driver of the bus, about any rashness or negligence during the accident and the Tribunal concluded from such evidence that PW.1 was travelling in the bus and was injured during the course of travel and was taken to the hospital at the request of the passengers of the bus by RW.1. The Tribunal also concluded that the driver must have been aware that the petitioner had received the injuries only in the bus and non-examination of the conductor makes the claims of the Corporation incredible. The Tribunal concluded the rash and negligent driving of the bus to have been probablised, which resulted in injuries to the petitioner for which the Corporation has to necessarily compensate him. It assessed the probable income of the petitioner to be about Rs.1000/- per month and considering 100% permanent disability, it assessed the loss of future earnings with reference to the multiplier “16.51” in accordance with the multiplier of Bhagvan Das v. Mohd. Arif 1987 (2) ALT 137. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment etc., and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.2,28,120/-. In coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal noted that there was no independent evidence about the income of the petitioner or the expenditure towards treatment and medicines. As the petitioner had both his legs and feet paralyzed after the accident, the Tribunal considered it fit to award the compensation arrived at with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs and it gave further directions about the disbursement of the compensation. The respondent-Corporation filed C.M.A.No.2706 of 2001 challenging the said award and contending that the petitioner did not travel in the bus at all at the relevant time and that no injuries were sustained due to the consequences of any rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Corporation also contended that the non- registration of any criminal case by the police improbablises the claims of the petitioner and the non-production of the bus ticket by the petitioner improbablises his travel. The Corporation contended that PW.2, who travelled along with PW.1, did not produce the bus ticket, if his allegations are true and questioned the genuineness of Ex.A.9-wound certificate, Ex.A.8-intimation form and the other documents. The APSRTC, therefore, desired the award to be reversed. The petitioner-claimant filed C.M.A.No.3262 of 2001 contending that the entire compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- as claimed should have been awarded assessing the loss of income on the basis of his earnings of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month from business in toys and photo frames at Brahmamgarimatam. The expenditure of Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- towards treatment and medicines should also have been reimbursed and the amounts granted by the Tribunal are grossly low and have to be upgraded. As both the appeals are against the same award, they are heard and decided together. Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for APSRTC and Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the claim petitioner are heard. The point for consideration is what is the just and adequate compensation to which the petitioner is entitled and from whom? Before the Tribunal and this Court, the Corporation disputed the factum of travel of the claim petitioner in the ill-fated bus at the relevant time. It is seen from the evidence of the driver of the bus, who deposed as RW.1, that even while the bus was in minimum speed at the relevant time, some of the passengers requested the conductor to take a passenger Obaiah (the name of the petitioner) to the hospital on the ground of his alleged sickness. Though he also claimed that those passengers did not inform that Obaiah received any injuries, the said admissions themselves probablise the travel of the petitioner in the bus at the relevant time, apart from of course the positive evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard. PW.2, a co traveller with PW.1, was not alleged to be in any way interested in PW.1 to resort to falsehood and therefore, the claim that PW.1 was not travelling in the bus cannot be sustained. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver from the overall probabilities arising out of the evidence on record also do not appear susceptible to any interference. The petitioner was injured while the bus was going on Nabikot and Laxmi Ranga theatre road in Cuddapah town and it is not even the claim of RW.1 that the petitioner boarded the bus with any injuries. If the hale and healthy petitioner was found on being taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddapah to have sustained a fracture of anterior vedge and compression of D-12 Vertebra and if the petitioner was so taken to the Hospital at the request of co-passengers travelling in the bus even according to RW.1, the claims of the petitioner and PW.2 that the petitioner was so injured due to the high jolts and on being thrown up and falling down due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver can be considered to be in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events. The consequences of the injuries sustained by the petitioner during the accident are proved by the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, PW.5 being the medical officer, who initially received and treated the petitioner and PW.6 being the person, who certified 100% disability. Bereft of the technical descriptions by PWs.5 and 6, the consequences, which the petitioner suffered, are inability to stand or walk without the support of clutches, which disability remains with him for the rest of his life from the age of 27 years. If so, such disability can be safely taken to have resulted in total loss of the capacity to earn in future and the evidence of the brother of PW.1 as PW.3 also corroborates the claim that PW.1 had now become totally bed ridden unable to move without the assistance of some other person. Though PW.1 claimed the petitioner to be earning much more from his business in toys etc., even his brother as PW.3 did not refer to the quantum of such income. The petitioner was not claimed to have been engaged in any other avocation prior to the accident and he admitted as PW.1 that there is no document to show either his business or his income. Thus, the Tribunal was left with the necessity to assess the probable income of the petitioner with its wisdom and experience and in the absence of any material to deviate from the estimate by the Tribunal, the assessment of the compensation does not appear open to interference. It is true that apart from Rs.1,98,120/- awarded towards total loss of future earnings, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- each towards pain and suffering and medical expenses etc., and Rs.20,000/- only towards grievous injury, which could have been on a slightly liberal scale, but either the request to enhance the compensation under these heads or to adopt any multiplier with reference to any later precedents has to be viewed in the background of the liability of the Corporation already imposed in the award in question to pay the compensation already awarded with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition in 1996. Any upward revision of the compensation already awarded at Rs.2,28,120/- as against the claim of Rs.2,75,000/- made by the petitioner also does not appear to be justified at this distance of time. Half of the compensation with interest and costs on the same was permitted to be withdrawn and the remaining half was directed to be kept in long term deposit with the claimant being at liberty to enjoy the accrued interest as per the orders of this Court dated 13- 12-2001, while the entire awarded amount was deposited by the APSRTC as per the directions of this Court earlier on 29-08-2001. Hence, the request of the Corporation to negative the compensation or the request of the claim petitioner to enhance the compensation cannot be considered feasible or justifiable under the circumstances and hence, the appeals have to fail. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-08-2010 Ksn