IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3120 of 2003 Between: Katrepally Balaiah .. Appellant AND APSRTC, represented by its Depot Manager, Sangareddy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 28-05-2002 in O.P.No.43 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appellant was going along with his wife on 25-11-1997 at about 1-30P.M. on the road, when APSRTC Bus No.AP-9Z-7100 came on wrong side in high speed being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against him near Gorgal cross-road. The appellant claimed to have sustained fracture of right leg, injuries on the left leg, head and all over the body and to have been taken to Government Hospital, Banswada and then Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad. He claimed to have spent Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and to have been totally disabled permanently. He claimed to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the age of 35 years earlier and hence, the APSRTC, represented by two officials was sued for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Corporation contested the claim putting the claimant to strict proof and denying any rash and negligent driving of the bus. It was claimed that the injuries were sustained by the appellant due to fall from an auto and the compensation claimed was excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet. The evidence of RW.1 about his acquittal by the Criminal Court was not relied on as being governed by different standards and in assessing the compensation, the Tribunal noted the claims of PW.1 about the injuries, the treatment and the expenditure. It also referred to the evidence of the doctor as PW.2, who assessed the disability at 70% permanent partial disability and to Ex.A.3- wound certificate issued by the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad. The Disability Certificate-Ex.A.15 issued by PW.2 was also referred to and considering the deformity and percentage of disability and the period of treatment, the Tribunal considered grant of Rs.1,00,000/- as just and adequate. The Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and conveyance charges and Rs.6,000/- towards actual medical expenses covered by Exs.A.7 to A.14. The total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. and also proportionate costs. The claimant desired in this appeal that the balance compensation claimed also be awarded as he sustained 70% permanent disability and became unfit to do any hard work. He also referred to his spending Rs.50,000/- towards treatment etc. Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the RTC driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving remained unchallenged and it has become final. The respondents also did not challenge the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal or the interest and proportionate costs awarded by it. It is the claimant that desired the balance of Rs.34,000/- also to be awarded to him as claimed. The claimant stated in the claim petition that he was not able to attend to his regular work due to the injuries and fractures and while it is true that Exs.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2- Charge Sheet as well as Ex.A.3-wound certificate show that the claimant suffered grievous injuries, it was Ex.A.15-Disability Certificate that described the disability as 70% permanent partial. Ex.A.15 was not issued by any duly constituted Medical Board and PW.2, the doctor, admitted in his evidence that there is a Medical Board at the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. PW.2, who had seen PW.1 only on 12-08-2001 concerning the accident on 25-11- 1997, did not state about his treating PW.1 at any time earlier. Assuming that the injury found by PW.1 was that sustained during the accident, the disability of 70% certified by PW.2 is with reference to the right lower limb and not the rest of the body. For continuing the occupation of the claimant as an agriculturist or a milk vendor, the disability certified under Ex.A.15 will not have a significant adverse impact as to substantially reduce his earning capacity. Even if the age of the claimant were to be accepted as 35 years and his income were to be taken as Rs.5,000/- per month as claimed by him and even if the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] at 16 were to be adopted, the total loss of earnings of the claimant would have been Rs.9,60,000/- for the future and if the disability in the right leg were to be considered as about 10% disability in respect of whole body or the occupation of the injured, the compensation under that head could not have been more than Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal. The grant of Rs.6,000/- towards actual medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and conveyance charges also cannot be considered too low and the total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- does not appear by any measure to be inadequate or unjust and the same is not susceptible to interference with at this distance of time, more so, when the compensation awarded carried a reasonable interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the absence of any strong grounds for interference with the well reasoned award, the appeal should fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-03-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298