THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No:2340 of 2005 And M.A.C.M.A.No.4222 of 2008 C.M.A.No.2340 of 2005 BETWEEN: 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad, and another. APPELLANTS AND D. Nagendramma @ Nagendram, W/o. Sambasiva rao, Occ: Dairy Farm, R/o. MIG 24/6, III Phase, K.P.H.B. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT Counsel for Petitioners: Sri V.T.M. Prasad Counsel for Respondent: Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy C.M.A.No.4222 of 2008 BETWEEN D. Nagendramma @ Nagendram, W/o. Sambasiva rao, Occ: Dairy Farm, R/o. MIG 24/6, III Phase, K.P.H.B. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Sri V.T.M. Prasad The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director preferred C.M.A.No.2340 of 2005, and for further enhancement of compensation the appellant/injured preferred C.M.A.No.4222 of 2008 against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed in O.P.No.2113 of 2002 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the injured) filed the above O.P. under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.9,43,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 19.02.2002 at about 11.45 a.m. When she was crossing the road at Upkar sweekar at Jubilee Bus-stand, in order to go to her daughter’s house at K.P.H.B., the RTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 9195 belonging to the respondents- corporation, and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed dashed her, as a result of which, her right leg was completely crushed. She also sustained injuries to head and all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital from there to NIMS where she had underwent treatment. In spite of that she suffered permanent disability. On a report made by the Police out post, Jubilee bus-stand, a case in Crime No.37 of 2002 was registered, investigated into, and a charge sheet has been filed. 3. The respondents-corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition contending that since the bus was negotiating a right turn, it was proceeding slowly and the driver of the bus could not notice the petitioner since she came into contact with the right side middle portion of the bus after its front side crossed her, and as such, there was no rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the respondents-corporation. Hence the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 19.02.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 9195 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? If so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, the injured herself was examined as PW.1, one Dr. Subhash Rao as PW.2 and Mr. V. Sridhar, Financial Controller in NIMS hospital, as PW.3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the respondents, the Driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 but no documentary evidence has been adduced. 5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the injured, and the oral evidence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal held on Issue No.1 that the evidence of RW.1 goes to show that after he saw the petitioner having fell down on the road and trying to pick up her luggage, he stopped the bus. But since the road was sloppy, the bus slided backwards and dashed the petitioner’s right leg below the knee causing injury, hence the respondent corporation is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly answered the issue in favour of the injured. 6. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded towards Transportation charges, since the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that she had to hire a car for visiting the NIMS hospital from her village Nandipet to Hyderabad at least on six occasions. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of suffering the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.3,000/- towards damages to clothing and articles. Since Ex.A.12 has been proved by PW.3 it has awarded a sum of Rs.48,082/- towards Medical and nursing expenses, a sum of Rs.34,713/- towards medicines and Rs.21,000/- towards loss of income for a period of seven months, treating the amounts as the special damages. As far as general damages are concerned, the Tribunal observing that as per Ex.P.4 the discharge summary the patient was in shock, severe anemia and the mental trauma and she has to carry on through out her life, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the petitioner was totally handicapped in the very movement besides suffering permanent disfiguration of the right leg up to thigh and also loss of big toe with clubbing of other fingers, taking into consideration the income of the injured at Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, by assessing the disability suffered by her at 30%, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.93,600/- towards permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,394/- towards compensation. Hence these two appeals. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/colaimant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-corporation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below ought to have considered Ex.P.7- the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard to the income of the injured at Rs.80,000/- per annum. He also contended that the Tribunal having observed that the appellant’s leg was completely crushed and it is looking like “Mamsapu Mudda” and she cannot fold her right leg and also cannot walk more than a couple of steps, failed to consider Ex.P.6-disability certificate showing the disability at 60%, and took the disability at 30% only. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd from the annual income towards her personal expenses, which cannot be deducted in injury cases, and the same is contrary to the Act. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-corporation contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the injured was crossing the road recklessly, that too, when there was a stop signal for the pedestrians, and hence, she was negligent in crossing the road; and the fact that her leg was injured under the rear tyre of the bus goes to show that the driver was not guilty of any negligence, since the bus was taking right at the signal and it was too slow. Hence the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced. 10. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. It is also no doubt true that the big toe of the appellant was amputated and there has been disfiguration of entire right leg as supported by the photographs under Exs.P.8 to P.10. The whole injury appears to have been skin grafted. It was black and swollen, and all other fingers appear to be clubbed with each other. The foot appears to be a “Mamsapu Mudda”. As seen from the photographs it is evident that she cannot move or walk throughout her life without any help of others since she cannot fold her leg. Under the above circumstances, it would be just and proper to take the earnings of the appellant at Rs.3000/- p.m. and Rs.36,000/- per year. Taking into consideration 60% disability her annual income would come to Rs.21,600/- p.a. Since the injured was aged about 49 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1], the correct multiplier would be ‘13’. Thus the loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,80,800/- (Rs.21,600 x 13), which is rounded off to Rs.2,80,000/-. Since the injury extends from the fingers of the right leg to just above right thigh and the same was skin grafted, the appellant would have incurred huge amount for medicines and she had filed a bunch of bills, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.83,000/- towards medical and nursing expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges for rest of her life. In total the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed and the appeal filed by the respondents-corporation is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 15th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129