HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A. No. 3755 of 2003 O R D E R: Aggrieved by award dated 30-7-2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad in OP No. 689 of 1996, APSRTC, who is owner of the accident bus, filed this appeal. 2. In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of the accident which took place on 15-5-1996 at about 6.00 p.m. in the outskirts of Mubarak Nagar Village. It is a case of collision between RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 5261 and scooter bearing No. ATJ 4612. The injured claimant was pillion rider on the scooter. The lower Tribunal found that RTC bus was at fault and that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. 3. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that RTC bus driver was examined as RW-1 in this case and that as per his version, the accident took place when the bus was in stationed position and the scooter came at high speed and dashed the stationed bus. The police originally, booked Ex.A1-FIR against RW-1 and after investigation filed charge sheet admittedly against RW-1. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that as per Ex.B1 copy of judgment in CC No. 486 of 1996, RW-1 was found not guilty of the offence and he was acquitted in the accident case. The criminal court did not acquit RW-1 after holding that he was not driving the bus in either rash or negligent manner; but the criminal court acquitted RW-1 on the ground that the injured did not identify RW-1 as driver of the crime vehicle. Now before this Court, there is no dispute about identity of the bus driver; and in fact, RW-1 himself came to the lower Tribunal and gave evidence to the effect that he was driver of the accident bus at the relevant time. Therefore, Ex.B1 cannot have any relevance in deciding the question on rash and negligent driving in the claim petition. The Tribunal has to come to its own finding based on other evidence let in by both the parties. 4. Apart from RW-1, there is evidence of PW-3, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. Though RW-1 is an interested witness in himself, PW-3 is an independent eye-witness. Evidence of PW-3 is entitled to more weight than that of RW-1. Evidence of RW-1 that the bus was stationed at the time of occurrence, cannot be believed. There was no necessity to stop the bus at that place. The scene of accident is neither a bus stop nor a bus stand. It is evidence of PW-3, who is driver of the scooter that he was driving the scooter slowly and cautiously and at the scene of accident, RTC bus came in the opposite direction on wrong side of the road and dashed their scooter. This is not a case of head on collision between two vehicles in the middle of the road. As per the evidence on record, the bus came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter on wrong side of the road. Having regard to the above evidence on record, the lower Tribunal rightly found that RTC bus driver- RW-1 was responsible for this accident because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. I find that there is no negligence on the part of the scooter driver PW-3 muchless he contributed any negligence for this accident. 5. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is excessive. The injured apart from examining himself as PW-1, examined PW-2, who is a doctor, who examined him. PW-2, who examined PW1 on 19.7.1997, stated that there was old case of communited supra condyler fracture right femur. PW-2 says that PW-1 has got 70% partial permanent disability of right knee joint and right leg as there was shortening of right leg by half an inch and flexion of right knee is limited to 40 degrees, extension restricted and the weight bearing is painful and gait is hampered. 6. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for permanent disability, Rs.6,717/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses for removal of plate, rod and screws, totalling Rs.1,01,717/- The amount granted under the head of pain and suffering is inclusive of the amount towards the injury sustained by the injured. It appears that there is typographical mistake in the order of the lower Tribunal by showing Rs.50,000/- as against pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- as against permanent disability. It should have been vice-versa. The injured is entitled for Rs.25,000/- for communited fracture including pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. The medical expenses of Rs.6,717/- awarded by the lower Tribunal are borne out by Exs.A3 to A14-medical bills. 7. The appellants’ counsel disputes award of Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses. It is contended that when the petitioner incurred total expenditure of Rs.6,717/- for taking treatment in Government Hospital including surgical treatment, awarding of amount of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of implates is excessive. There is some substance in this submission of the appellant’s counsel. This court is of the opinion that reasonable amount of Rs.6,283/- can be awarded towards future medical expenses instead of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, total compensation amount payable to the injured claimant comes to Rs.88,000/-. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs, altering compensation amount payable in this case from Rs.1,01,717/- to Rs.88,000/-. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 10-12-2010 Mjl/*