IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1732 OF 2007 Between : The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Manging Director. .... APPELLANT AND Smt C.Jahita. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1732 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the A.P.S.R.T.C. The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.250 of 2003, dated 28.04.2005, on the file of Chairman Motor Vehicle Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, whereunder an amount of Rs.1,39,700/- together with interest at 9% per annum has been granted as compensation in favour of the respondent herein (claimant). 2. This is a case of injuries. On 15.11.2002, while the claimant was waiting at bus stop, the bus bearing registration No.AP-9Z-6451, dashed her due to which she sustained fracture to the right foot and received other injuries. Therefore, she filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant contending that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the claimant herself. It was also contended that the amount claimed is excessive. The Tribunal formulated the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and; 2) Whether the claimant was entitled for any compensation ? 3) To what relief ? 4 The claimant examined herself as PW-1 and further examined PW-2 (eye witness) and PW-3 Doctor and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. The appellant examined its driver as RW-1. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- representing 40% disability. Rs.20,000/- towards injuries to the right leg and foot of the claimant, Rs.1000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.1000/- towards conveyance charges and Rs.3000/- towards extra nourishment. It also awarded a further sum of Rs.6,700/- towards medical bills, in all a sum of Rs.1,39,700/- was awarded, 6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner is not based on any reliable evidence and in fact the claimant herself was responsible for the incident. PW-2 was the eye witness to the incident. In his deposition he stated that on 15.11.2002 he was selling sugarcane juice at the bus stop and he noticed the claimant waiting for the bus, at which time the bus from 16-A route came at high speed near PW-1 where she was standing and its front tyre ran over on the right leg. He gave complaint to Kushaiguda police station. As against this RW-1 who is the driver of the bus was examined who stated that the bus reached E.C.I.L. cross roads at about 6.00 P.M., many passengers rushed towards the bus to board before it completely stopped including the claimant. The claimant tried to catch the bus while it was in motion and tried to catch hold of the rod from the front door, but she missed rod and before he could apply brakes her left ankle came at the tyre. It may be noted from the evidence both PW-2 and Rw-1 that the claimant sustained injuries only on account of tyre running over the right leg. The evidence of PW- 2 is clear that the vehicle came in a very rash and negligent manner. RW-1 clearly admitted that so many passengers came rushing towards the bus and if that be true he should have not moved the vehicle any further and the vehicle should have been stopped instantly. Had RW-1 taken care to stop the vehicle immediately, the incident would not have occurred. It is therefore, evident that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by RW-1. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The claimant marked Ex.A4 which is the disability certificate issued by the medical board. Ex.A5 are the 42 medical bills and Ex.A8 to A10 are the discharge cards. Pw-3 Doctor who treated the claimant conducted surgery to the right leg and foot and skin grafting three times on 15.11.2002, 27.11.2002 and 21.01.2003. According to Ex.A5 issued by the Medical Board, the claimant cannot walk and work properly. He found the disability as 40%. According to Ex.A3 the claimant also suffered laceration of right leg, exposure of the lower muscle and tendens and laceration of 25x10x2 cms. over the medical aspect of leg and ankle. Thus the claimant sustained both minor and major injuries. 9. Having regard to the same, the injuries to her right leg is fatal, on account of which she is unable to attend the job. Therefore, the nature of injuries and the treatment, the claimant received the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Learned counsel further contended that the interest @9% per annum is excessive. It may be noted at the award interest is discretionary and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest is not liable to be reduced. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J JULY 01, 2010. YVL