HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1651 OF 1997 DATED: 06.10.2009 BETWEEN: The Managing Director Cum Vice Chairman, APSRTC .. Appellant And Smt Kalpana Ravindra Masur and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1651 OF 1997 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the applicant-APSRTC challenging the award dated 25.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kurnool in O.P.No.142 of 1994 challenging its liability and also questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. In the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.02.1993, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,12,165/-. 3. The evidence of 1st respondent, who was examined as PW.2 before the Tribunal reveals that on account of the fracture sustained to both legs, she was given first aid at Yemmiganur Hospital and subsequently shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for one day and there from she was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where she under went two operations, steel rods were inserted in both legs and were removed by conducting operations. It is also borne out from her evidence that she under went physiotherapy for four months, but ultimately the fracture resulted in permanent disability, which was not completely cured, and she was not able to squat on the floor and also knees are still painful. That she cannot sit and stand for long time. That her oral testimony amply proves with the documentary evidence adduced by her and the same has rightly been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. 4. Further according to the 1st respondent-claimant, while she was proceeding in Tata Estate car bearing No. KA 04 M 4624 belonging to her father, which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and while it was on the way to Bangalore, the APSRTC bus bearing No. AAZ 8571 which was driven by RW1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the car. Whereas, it is in the evidence of RW.1 - the driver of the bus that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver. In the first information report, the copy of which was marked as Ex.P.1, it is mentioned that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. However, the learned Tribunal relying on the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 – injured and RW1 being interested in their respective cases, held that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and on facts and having regard to the circumstances in which the accident occurred held that neither of the drivers made any efforts to avoid the accident, by taking necessary precautions and ultimately arrived at a positive finding that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident. Since the finding on this aspect is arrived at by the Tribunal basing on the evidence and the same is being a reasoned one, I see no force in the contention that the accident was occurred solely on account of the fault of the car driver. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation PW.2, 1st respondent is a practicing advocate at Bangalore at the time of accident and had a standing of 13 years at the Bar. She was maintaining a car and also an incometax assessee. Her income was claimed to be Rs.7,400/- per month and the same was rightly accepted by the Tribunal. Keeping in view the disability sustained by the claimant and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads viz. for permanent disability Rs.75,000/-, Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-, Hospital Bills Rs.62,565/-, Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-, Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/-, Transport charges Rs.200/-,Loss of earnings from 8.2.1993 to the date of filing of the petition is Rs.44,400/- and Loss of earnings Rs.1,00,000/- are just and reasonable and they need no interference in this appeal. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% is on higher side and not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in various judgments. Therefore, in this appeal, interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 6. With the above modification only with regard to the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 06.10.2009 Kvrm