HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.777 OF 2003 AND CROSS – OBJECTIONS (S.R.) No.4027 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.215 of 2000 vide order dated 22-08-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, the APSRTC, Hyderabad preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. On the other hand, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant preferred the above Cross Objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 8959 involved in the accident and the APSRTC, appellant herein, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The claimant is cross objector herein. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 5. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 21-01-2000 at Rajahmundry, he boarded the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 8959 along with his luggage of cloth bundles and as the driver, respondent No.1, of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, at about 5-15 PM, near Diwancheruvu, bus dashed against a tree on the road margin, as a result, bus turned turtle and he sustained fracture of spinal card and other multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. Due to the fracture of spinal card, he lost sensation of his body and he became permanently disabled. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment but till today he did not recover. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Respondent No.1, the driver of the APSRTC bus involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 7. Respondent No.2, the owner of the above bus - APSRTC, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and its liability for payment of compensation. 8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 21-1-2000 at 5-15 P.M. at Usha Academy near Divancheruvu, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z/8959 by the 1st respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained any permanent disability due to the injuries received in the accident ? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 4. To what relief ?” 9. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus involved in the accident was got examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. 10. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,61,745/- to the claimant against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum form the date of petition till realization. 11. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the APSRTC preferred the appeal contending that the compensation awarded to the claimant is on higher side. 12. On the other hand, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant preferred the cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 13. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal erred in awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimant ? 14. The evidence of RW.1, the driver of the bus involved in the accident, is that while he was trying to avert a collision with a lorry that was coming in the opposite direction, he swerved the bus to the extreme right side of the road and at that time, front plates springs of the bus were broken and as a result, the accident has taken place but not on account of his negligence. Though he tried to give some explanation saying that to avert a possible collision with a lorry coming in the opposite direction accident took place, there is no dispute that the accident has taken place without the involvement of any other vehicle and the claimant was occupant of that bus at that time. Thus, there is no dispute that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 15. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the evidence of the claimant as PW.1 is that he sustained fracture of spinal card. He was taken to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of two months. Thereafter, he was taken to Lalitha Nursing Home, Visakhapatnam for further treatment where surgery was performed to both his legs and neck. Thereafter, again he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and there he took treatment as inpatient for four months. Even after discharge, he is going to the hospital for regular medical check up as he sustained fracture of spinal card. He lost sight of his left eye completely. He is not in a position to do any work. It is also recorded in his deposition that the witness was carried into witness box with the aid of a person and made him to sit. His further evidence is that he is unable to sit or squat and not even able to attend calls of nature and he needs assistance for everything. He spent Rs.1,80,000/- towards medical expenses though he has no bills for the entire amount. He has bills only for Rs.17,745/-. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he has not sustained any disability and the injuries stated by him. He admitted that he did not mention in the petition that he lost sight of his left eye. 16. The evidence of PW.2, the medical officer, is that on 09-02-2001, he examined the claimant. The claimant was suffering from cervical spine injury with paralysis of all the four limbs for which he was operated. There was partial recovery of paralysis and the disability was assessed at 80% by the medical board, which issued Ex.A-4 disability certificate. 17. The Tribunal, accepting the evidence of the claimant as PW.1 and the medical officer as PW.2 and found that the claimant sustained the disability claimed by him i.e., injury to spinal card etc. Further, it was found that there was no authentic evidence with regard to profession of the claimant and his income being Rs.5,000/- per month. No doubt, there is no authentic evidence with regard to income of the claimant, who was aged 21 years at the time of accident. Even if he was not earning any substantial amount on the date of accident, by the passage of time his income would have gone up. But, on account of the accident, he has become completely wreck without any possibility of any earnings and not only that he requires continuous assistance for his daily needs as he is unable to sit or squat and someone has to maintain him through out his life as he cannot earn anything. Apart from all this, he has to suffer life long as a most crippled person, as he is totally disabled and cannot sit or squat due to injury to the spinal card. 18. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.2,61,745/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be adequate. The claimant has not only lost his income but he has become a liability to his family and he needs assistance for his personal activities also and as already referred his life has become waste and he has to put up with the same till his death. 19. In the circumstances, I hold that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by him and the same is accordingly awarded. 20. Coming to the question of rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with a default clause to enhance the rate of interest at 12% per annum in case there is delay in depositing the compensation within 30 days from the date of the award. In view of the present legal position, the rate of interest that can be awarded is at 6% to 7.5% per annum. However, as it is a case, where the claimant has become permanently disabled, requires assistance even for his personal activities and has to survive solely on the interest he gets on the compensation now awarded, hence I am of the opinion that granting interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization would be justifiable. Accordingly, the rate of interest is awarded at 9% per annum on the entire compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of petition till realization. 21. Thus the compensation of Rs.2,61,745/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The entire enhanced compensation along with the interest accrued thereon till now shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. I am not prescribing any date for withdrawal of the enhanced compensation by the claimant since he has to maintain himself solely on the interest he would be getting on the compensation awarded now as he became permanently disabled and could not do any other work. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the compensation every month from now onwards. However, with regard to withdrawal of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, order of the Tribunal shall stand. 22. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Cross Objections are allowed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 30, 2010. PV