HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2765 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19-3-2004 made in O.P.No.1093 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa. 2. While N.Chandra was crossing the road near L.M.Bank at Rajampet on 04-10-2001, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-3795 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him without blowing horn, as a result he suffered injuries on right shoulder, left hip, right ribs, back side hip and multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajampet and from there to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi. He filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner of the bus – APSRTC. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of the claimant and no evidence adduced on behalf of APSRTC, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.2,35,435/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petitoin till actual deposit. Aggrieved thereby, APSRTC preferred this appeal challenging the finding as to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus and quantum of compensation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. It is seen from the record that no evidence was adduced in OP by the appellant-APSRTC. It is for the appellant to examine its driver to show that the claimant was in drunken condition and therefore accident occurred, but it has not chosen to examine the driver. In the absence of contra evidence, the Tribunal is right is coming to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus. There are no compelling reasons or circumstances to take a different view. 5. Coming to the compensation, it was claimed that the claimant was a mechanic and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the accident is of the year 2001 and in the absence of any specific denial by appellant as to the vocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly fixed notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. The injured was aged 35 years by the date of accident and the multiplier appropriate to that age is '17'. The injured suffered disability and though PW-2 Doctor stated that the disability is 50% and there is possibility of 5% error on either side in calculating percentage of disability, the Tribunal has rightly taken 35% disability and calculated the compensation. Apart from this, the Tribunal had granted the amount spent towards treatment of injuries and towards pain and suffering which is said to be continuous. Having regard to the nature of injuries, income taken and multiplier applied with the percentage of disability, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal had granted just and reasonable compensation and therefore the order of the Tribunal is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-7-2010 bsc