HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1757 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive and exorbitant, APSRTC preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment in O.P. No.95 of 2001 dated 23-02-2004 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal. 2. Appellant is APSRTC and respondent is claimant. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 26-07-2000 at 10-30 am, while he was going on a cycle along with his friend to attend welding work, near Darga main road, Mulug, Warangal, APSRTC bearing No.AP10 – Z – 4590 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed came from the back side without blowing horn and hit him, as a result, he sustained several injuries including fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal where he was treated from 26-07-2000 to 19-08-2000. He could not recover totally and his leg is shortened and he is limping. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and later he enhanced it to Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. APSRTC filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “(1) Whether the accident occurred on 26-7-2000 due to rah and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4590 driven by its drier, as per S.166 of M.V. Act? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief ?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the APSRTC, RW.1 was examined. Ex.C-1 was marked by the Court. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimant which he claimed. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation, APSRTC preferred this appeal. 9. It has to be kept in mind that originally, claimant claimed only Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation and later on it was enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded total claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 10. In the circumstances, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is just and reasonable ? 11. According to the claimant, he was aged around 19 years and was said to be working as a welder and earning Rs.3,500/- per month. As per paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Tribunal, claimant sustained fracture of both bones of the right leg below the knee and ankle apart from other simple injuries. He was inpatient in Government Hospital, Warangal from 26-07-2000 to 19-08-2000. According to the medical officer, claimant sustained only one grievous injury. Thus, it is not clear as to which injury i.e., the injury below the knee or the ankle is grievous. Treating the disability as 60%, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,40,700/- under the following heads: Loss of earning capacity - Rs.4,03,200-00 Actual loss of earnings - Rs. 10,500-00 Medical and extra nourishment - Rs. 1,500-00 Transport expenses - Rs. 500-00 Pain and suffering - Rs. 25,000-00 But, as the claim made by the claimant was only Rs.4,00,000/-, restricted the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-. 12. The amount of Rs.37,500/- awarded towards loss of earnings, pain and suffering, transportation and medical & extra nourishment can be said to be reasonable and the same need not be interfered with except the amount of Rs.4,03,200/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity. 13. Now the question is how much can be awarded towards loss of future earnings for which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,03,200/-. Tribunal held that claimant sustained 60% permanent disability, as such, he is entitled to Rs.4,03,200/- towards loss of future earnings. The reason given by the Tribunal for awarding such an exorbitant compensation is totally baseless. It relied on Ex.A-8 disability certificate issued by PW.2 showing that claimant sustained permanent disability of 60%. Evidence of PW.2, who treated the claimant and issued disability certificate showing permanent disability as 60% to right leg is highly exaggerative, as this witness has stated that permanent disability is based on mal-united fracture of both bones of right leg and mal-united fracture of right calkaneum with painful limp. But, as already referred, there is no positive material to show that claimant sustained two fractures. Even PW.2 has admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.A-3 shows only one injury as grievous. 14. PW.3, another medical officer, stated that claimant sustained only one fracture. In his chief-examination, this witness never stated as to on which part of the leg claimant sustained fracture. Thus, the entire material is suspicious. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding a compensation of more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity for a single grievous injury sustained by the claimant, who was a 19 years old boy at the time of accident, is suspicious. 15. As far as the claimant sustaining one fracture and some other injuries is concerned, there is no dispute. Considering all the circumstances, I hold that claimant can be awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which include the compensation towards actual loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, medical, extra nourishment and transportation charges etc., even which is also somewhat on higher side. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). Claimant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 16. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 16, 2010. PV