HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLEANEOUS APPEAL No.602 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.1999 in O.P.No.513 of 1998 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool granting compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the first respondent/claimant herein. 2. The injured/claimant sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.03.1997, wherein the bus bearing No.AEZ 2536 belonging to the appellant/APSRTC was involved. 3. The Tribunal having arrived at the conclusion that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent/driver of the RTC bus, fastened liability on the appellant/APSRTC holding that it is vicariously liable to pay compensation. The challenge of appellant/APSRTC is against the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, driver of RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 2536, regarding the quantum of compensation and also about the interest awarded by the Tribunal, which according to the appellant/APSRTC is on higher side. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant. POINT NO.1: 5. On the question, as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus, second respondent, the only evidence available in this regard is that of the injured claimant, who was examined as PW.1. His evidence indicates that while he was proceeding in his Maruti Car bearing No.AP 02 C- 2556 from Atmakur to Velgode on 06.03.1997, the RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 2536 came in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the Maruti Car. Thus, according to him, the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus. In the said accident, he sustained injuries and the Maruti car was also damaged. He is the owner of the Maruti car. His version is inconformity with Ex.A1, certified copy of first information report and Ex.A3, certified copy of charge sheet. Further, there is no contra evidence by the appellant corporation in proof of its contention that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car owned by the first respondent/claimant/PW.1 or in the alternative that there was composite negligence on the part of the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the Tribunal appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus, the second respondent. The said finding does not require any interference in this appeal and the same is accordingly decided against the appellant. POINT No.2 6. With regard to quantum of compensation, according to the claimant, he was a partner in M/s. G.V. Raman Lakshman agency, dealing in brokerage and commission agents in purchase and sale of oils and thereby he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He was aged 45 years as on the date of accident. As against his claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal granted Rs.1,30,000/- in respect of the permanent disability and for the injuries suffered by him. In the above said motor vehicle accident, the Tribunal granted a total amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation that no evidence was adduced by the injured/claimant regarding his avocation and also further stated that according to the evidence of the injured, PW.1, he was doing business on phone and that the disability will not come in the way of his earnings. 8. The Tribunal having taken into account the above mentioned fact i.e., failure on the part of the injured to prove that he was doing business at that relevant point of time, declined to grant any amount towards loss of earnings, though an amount of Rs.30,000/- is claimed under that head. 9. PW.2, Dr.D.V.Ramana, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Noble Nursing Home, Kurnool, who treated the first respondent stated in his evidence before the Tribunal as follows: “The petitioner G.V. Lakshman took treatment in Noble Nursing Home for a period of one week from 06.03.1997, and when he was brought to Noble Nursing Home, he found badly crushed right hand with loss of ring finger and degloved little finger, multiple lacerations over middle and index fingers of the right hand, and by then he had loose hanging bone of 5th finger of right hand, i.e., little finger. He also noticed fracture of ribs on right side with collection of blood in the rib cage. After treatment of one week he referred him to specialised centres for hand surgery. During the period of 9 months, he had undergone four surgeries for reconstruction of right hand. Even after the said four surgeries, reconstruction of right hand could not become successful. He examined PW.1 recently and found functionally and cosmetically, disabled right hand, and that PW.1 is suffering from disability of 65% which is permanent. In his cross examination, he stated that if a finger is amputated, it can be said that there is disability of 14%. He admitted that except adopting first aid measures, he did not conduct any operation of PW.1. He denied that PW.1 is suffering with disability of 10%.” 10. PW.1 – the injured claimant deposed in his evidence for the injuries before the Tribunal as follows: “ He sustained fracture injury to middle finger and index finger of his right hand, and the little finger and ring finger were cut off. He also sustained multiple rib fractures on right side. He stated that after the accident, the driver of the RTC bus went away without stopping the bus. The number of RTC bus, which involved in the accident was AEZ 2536. He also stated that after first aid, he was referred to Kurnool Govt. General Hospital. The driver of the said Maruti Car succumbed to injuries four days after the accident. After discharge from Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool, he took treatment in Noble Nursing Home, Kurnool for two days and thereafter he was taken to Billroth hospital, Madras for better treatment. He was in the said hospital for about two months. Regarding the fingers of his right hand, five operations were done. He stated that as a partner, he was getting a net income of Rs.30,000/- per month, and he was paying income tax. Because of the fracture injury to middle finger and index finger and because of loos of little finger and ring finger, he cannot use his right hand for any purpose, and because of the fracture of ribs, he is unable to work as before and is unable to sit for a long time. He further stated that he owns agricultural lands near Bellary in Bisnehalli village. He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In his cross-examination by R.2, he stated that he did not file partnership deed into Court. He admitted that in his petition he did not mention that he is the partner of M/s. G.V. Raman-Lakshman. He further admitted that he undertakes his business through phone. He also stated that he does not know whether the driver of Maruti Car was held responsible for the said accident, in the claim made by the legal heirs of Maruthi Car driver. He admitted that he did not file nay record to show that he owns lands. In his cross-examination by R-3, he stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of RTC bus. He stated that he cannot say whether R-3 cannot be held liable to pay compensation to him or not.” 11. In view of the evidence referred above, the compensation granted by the Tribunal below under the following heads viz. Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, considering medical bills and the treatment which the appellant had undergone, Rs.50,000/- for functional disability, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and in all Rs.1,30,000/-, is not on higher side and it is just and reasonable. Thus, the contention urged by the appellant/APSRTC as to the quantum of compensation is on higher side, has no force. 12. However, the interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side and also not in accordance with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and also keeping in view that the appeal has been pending before this Court since 2000, it is appropriate to reduce the interest and it is accordingly reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 13. On evidence it is found that the appellant/APSRTC alone is liable to pay compensation and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the maruthi car bearing No.AP-02 C-2556 and consequently the insurer of the said vehicle (Respondent No.3) is not liable to pay compensation. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J 24th August, 2009 MD