IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1519 of 2005 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, represented by its Managing Director .. Appellant AND Janagama Venkati @ Venkataiah and another .. Respondents ORDER: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.651 of 2004 dated 6-4-2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The 1st respondent herein boarded the Bus No.AP-9-Z-6156 at the RTC bus stand, Karimnagar on 11-10-1999 at about 4.40 P.M. and as the driver suddenly started the bus while the 1st respondent herein was in the process of boarding, he slipped and fell down. The left rear tyres of the bus ran over the 1st respondent herein fracturing the left ankle and crushing the left leg. In spite of treatment at Government Hospital, Karimnagar and Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, the left leg was amputated below the knee and the 1st respondent was confined to bed for six months while undergoing treatment at huge expense. The victim aged 32 years was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture and milk vending business and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the driver and the APSRTC. While the driver denied the allegations of the claimant or any negligence on his part, the Corporation, while supporting the driver, put the claimant to strict proof of his allegations. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet to conclude that the negligence of the bus driver resulted in the accident. The Tribunal in assessing the compensation referred to the claimant filing medical bills only to a tune of Rs.1,039/- and granted only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses including for surgery. The Tribunal also considered it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of future amenities of life. The Tribunal considered the income of the injured to be Rs.1,500/- per month as against his claim of Rs.5,000/- and awarded Rs.4,500/- towards loss of income for the period of three months. Though the physical disability of the victim was said to be 60% according to the doctor, PW.2, considering the nature of the work and the nature of the disability of the victim, the Tribunal considered the disability to be 80% and consequential assessment of loss of future earnings was at Rs.1200/- per month to which a multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was applied. The loss of earnings at Rs.2,44,800/- and other damages referred to above made a total of Rs.3,25,339/-, which was rounded off by the Tribunal to Rs.3,26,000/-, awarded with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The APSRTC filed the appeal questioning the conclusions about the manner of fall of the victim as any fall while boarding would have resulted in the person being injured not by the left front tyre of the bus but by the left rear tyres. Application of multiplier of 17, granting of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of future amenities and assessment of future loss of earnings were contended to be excessive and high. Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard. None appeared for the 2nd respondent-driver before this Court. Though the Corporation made a feeble attempt to question the manner of the victim being injured in the accident, it is clear that the claim of the victim in the claim petition and as PW.1 was that the left rear tyres ran over his left leg and not the left front tyres. The reference in the impugned award to the front tyre appears to be an inadvertent error and is not corroborated even by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet. While there is no evidence to the contrary on behalf of the respondents to the claim, there is no reason to disbelieve the manner of the accident because of any minor discrepancy in description. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the age of the claimant was stated to be 32 years to contradict which there is no evidence and the amputation of left leg below the knee is not only a matter of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.5 to A.8 but also a physical observation by the Tribunal itself at the time of recording the evidence of PW.1. The amputation of the left leg below the knee joint, though the person is living by doing agriculture work and milk vending business, obviously will have a substantial adverse impact on his capacity to earn in future. The permanent loss of limb disabling the claimant for the rest of his life in pursuing any avocation effectively could not have been considered to have been excessively estimated at 80% by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, as against the claim of the victim that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal accepted his income to be only Rs.1500/- per month, which appears to be very conservative and less than even the minimum wages at the relevant time payable even to unskilled or skilled labourers. Out of such lowly estimated income, the Tribunal took only 80% into account for calculating the future loss of earnings and the multiplier adopted is not higher than that indicated by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Therefore, while the future loss of earnings cannot be considered excessive, the award of Rs.30,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss of future amenities also does not appear high compared to conventional sums usually granted in such cases. Interest granted at 9% p.a. was not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing market rate of interest and given the gravity of the impact of the accident on the victim due to amputation of left leg, the compensation awarded does not appear to be excessive or unjust. Therefore, the appeal should fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298