HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.497 OF 2003 & Cross Objection S.R.No.32038 of 2003 DT.2-12.2010 Between: The General Manager (now redesignated as Managing Director) and another ……..Appellants Vs. Abdul Samad …………Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.497 OF 2003 & Cross Objection S.R.No.32038 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed assailing the orders, dated 28.09.2002 passed in O.P.No.681 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, whereby the claim petition of the respondent-petitioner was partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.1996 at about 9.30 a.m., the respondent- petitioner was travelling in the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 9/Z 3403 that was going from Madan Hipperga Village Sivar, Madnoor side on Hyderabad to Nanded Road; that the driver of the bus drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, it fell into a ditch on the road side; that the door of the bus came out, the respondent-petitioner fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his legs causing fracture injuries. He was treated at Bichkunda and Nizamabad hospitals. Madnoor Police registered a case in Cr.No.17 of 1996 under Section 337 I.P.C. 3. It is the case of the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C., that the respondent/claimant was not travelling by the alleged offending R.T.C. bus and that the driver of the bus was not at all guilty of rash and negligent driving of the said bus; that in fact, the respondent/claimant attempted to catch the running bus and accidentally fell down as the door of the bus came out. He suffered fracture injuries by falling on the road. It is the further case of the appellant that no limb or part of his body came under any rear wheel of the bus. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was awarded by the lower Tribunal for left leg fracture injury; that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure incurred towards medicines, transport and extra nourishment. Thus, the respondent/claimant was awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the lower Tribunal erred in believing the medical evidence of PW-2 and in awarding the compensation, which is on the higher side. Therefore, it is contended that the same is liable to be reduced to a reasonable extent, so also the interest. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent/claimant that as per Ex.C-1, he suffered 40% permanent partial disability, however, the lower Tribunal erred in not considering the same and the Tribunal should have applied appropriate multiplier and could have awarded more compensation. So far as rash and negligent driving on the part of bus driver is concerned, it is contended that no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C., to show that the driver was not rash and negligent in driving the accident bus. Therefore, it is contended that the lower Tribunal was right in coming to a conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C., bus bearing No.AP 9/Z 3403. 6. The evidence of PW.1 is that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle at high speed in a zig zag manner in the ditches, as a result, he was thrown out from the bus and wheels of the bus ran over on his legs. Exs.A.1-FIR, A.2-Charge sheet, A.3-wound certificate indicate the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver, and corroborate the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, this court is of the view that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. 7. So far as awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, PW.2-Doctor, in his evidence deposed that on 4.5.1996 while he was on duty in the Government Headquarters hospital, Nizamabad, he treated the respondent-claimant, who was admitted in the male surgical ward with fracture of left leg and abrasions over right leg. He further stated that on 9.5.2001, he verified the medical records and examined the respondent-claimant and found old fracture of left leg, stiffness and painful movements of left knee joint, and that he assessed 40% permanent partial disability and issued Ex.C.1-disability certificate. PW.2 stated that the injuries mentioned in Ex.C.1 correspond to the injuries recorded in Ex.A.4- case sheet and Ex.A.2-wound certificate. PW.2 also stated that the respondent-claimant cannot walk properly, cannot sit and squat and cannot do hard work and he was advised regular physiotherapy. Exs.A.5, 6 and 7 indicate that the respondent- claimant had continued to take treatment privately and incurred expenditure. In that view of the matter, the lower Tribunal has granted Rs.75,000/- towards fracture injuries taking into consideration Ex.C.1-disability certificate. Further, having regard to the accident, hospitalisation and expenses incurred thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure. 8. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the cross objections are also dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -12-2010 Stp/Tjs