IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1566 of 2001 Between: K. Gangavva .. Appellant AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.717 of 1996 dated 14-11-2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appellant-petitioner met with the accident on 29-03- 1996 when she was travelling in the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ 3495 from Jakora to Nizamabad. As the bus turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the appellant sustained a fracture to her right hand apart from the injuries on the back and other parts of the body and she was treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad. She claimed to have spent Rs.25,000/- towards medicines and treatment and to be earning Rs.2,500/- per month earlier as labourer. She claimed to have suffered a permanent partial disability after the accident effecting her earning capacity and therefore, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondents representing the APSRTC resisted the claim contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all her claims and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident. The respondents desired that the claim be negatived. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation. During the enquiry PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and C.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.1, the victim, corroborated by the First Information Report and the charge sheet-Exs.A.1 and A.2 as probablising that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.3- wound certificate shows that the petitioner suffered a grievous injury and a simple injury and was treated as inpatient from 29-03-1996 to 01-04-1996. The Tribunal also noted that the medical bills were to a tune of Rs.1,137.50ps. Though PW.2 deposed before the Court about the 40% permanent partial disability to the petitioner as certified by him in Ex.C.1, the Tribunal declined to accept the same opining the same to be not scientific and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate costs. The petitioner is before this Court with this appeal being aggrieved by the said award contending that on the basis of the positive evidence placed before the Tribunal, the compensation should have been awarded as claimed when the petitioner became 100% disabled in respect of her labour, which she was doing prior to the accident. Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of RTC bus for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving are not challenged by either party and the said conclusions have become final. The consequential responsibility of the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the petitioner for the injuries sustained during the accident and their consequences cannot be in dispute. The liability of the respondents to compensate the petitioner as found by the Tribunal was also not challenged by either party and it is only the quantum of compensation that is awarded that is in dispute. The earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report itself alleged that the right upper arm of the victim was fractured in the accident. The victim was described as an agriculturist in Ex.A.2- charge sheet, which also referred to her suffering simple and grievous injuries in the accident. Ex.A.3-medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nizamabad showed that even in the first instance when the victim was presented before the Hospital, the grievous injury to the right upper arm in the shape of fracture to the shaft was noted, apart from a simple injury on the left shoulder. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the disability certified by PW.2 in Ex.C.1 could have been an afterthought or a subsequent invention. What all had been stated in Ex.C.1 by PW.2 was that the mal-united fracture resulted in 40% partial permanent disability. Assuming that the assessment of the percentage of the disability by PW.2 appears to be an exaggeration, it cannot also be denied at the same time that the permanent partial disability suffered by the petitioner due to the mal-united fracture could not have been totally non-existent also. The medical expert was before the Court deposing on oath about correctness of the disability certified by him and except making suggestions to the contrary during cross-examination, the respondents cannot be considered to have in any way improbablised the correctness of the claim of PW.2 about the petitioner suffering severe pain due to the consequences of the injuries. The petitioner herself as PW.1 stated before the Tribunal that she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month prior to the accident by working as a labourer and she contended that after the accident she was not in a position to do any work. Her cross-examination also is only suggesting her claims to be untrue, but not in any probablising her claims to be false or fabricated. On such evidence, the petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to just and adequate compensation from the respondents. The evidence of RW.1, the driver, is only about the manner of accident, but not on the injuries suffered by PW.1 and the very nature of the injuries would have disabled PW.1 from carrying on her normal avocation at least for a period of 6 to 8 weeks and she would have undoubtedly incurred significant sums towards medical expenses and extra nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental charges during the period of treatment. Though there is no definite evidence as to the expenses incurred by the petitioner in this regard except through Ex.A.7-medical bills to a tune of Rs.1,137.50ps, the petitioner should still be awarded all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which she will be entitled on a reasonable estimate of the same on the facts and circumstances, which cannot altogether exclude an element of estimate and guess work. If she lost her income for about two months, the same would have been about Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and the medical and another miscellaneous expenses referred to above would also have been a minimum of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. Apart from such sum of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-, the petitioner will be entitled to be compensated for the pain and suffering for one grievous injury and one simple injury, which in the usual course can be to a tune of Rs.10,000/-, while even according to the second schedule, it would be Rs.6,000/-. The compensation for the permanent disability suffered due to the mal- union of the fracture cannot be definitely quantified in terms of money. But, given the age of about 30 years by the time of accident for the petitioner and her admitted occupation as a labourer, the loss of earning capacity or loss of future earnings, even if it were to be approximately estimated, can be computed to be about not less than Rs.30,000/-, if she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer, which is not an exaggerated claim, keeping in view the minimum wages payable to agricultural labourers. Therefore, grant of a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- would have been just and adequate and the sum awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.35,000/- is on the lower side and has to be accordingly enhanced. Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant relied on Supe Dei and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd., and another[1] to claim that interest has to be awarded at 9% on the enhanced portion of compensation. But, while awarding interest at 9% p.a. as the appropriate rate of interest in that case, no hard and fast rule is being laid down prescribing any particular rate of interest as mandatory. Taking into account the fact that the interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion of the compensation from the date of petition in 1996 till the date of payment or realization, adopting normally granted rate of interest at 6% p.a., will be reasonable and appropriate on the facts of this case. Therefore, the award dated 14-11-2000 in O.P.717 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The petitioner is entitled to receive such enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs forthwith on payment or deposit. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-08-2010 Ksn [1] (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 513