IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos.995, 1004, 1682 and 3564 OF 2005 M.A.C.M.A. No.995 of 2005: Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Mekala Rajitha .. Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos.995, 1004, 1682 and 3564 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: These four appeals arise out of the awards passed in pursuance of a common order in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2003 and batch, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, dated 16.11.2004, and are hence, being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. M.A.C.M.A. No.727 of 2005 and batch and cross objections therein were disposed of by this Court on 08.12.2010 by a common judgment, except the cross objections in M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 which were decided on 21.01.2011. The said batch also arose out of the same common order. 3. The factual background for the appeals is that the deceased and injured, involved in all the cases, were travelling by Auto No. AP 36U 3483 to go to Karunapuram village on 22.02.2003 and in front of Veterinary Hospital in Malkapur village, an APSRTC bus No. AP 10Z 4185, driven rashly and negligently, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto, killing some passengers on the spot and severely injuring others. The survivors were treated at Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Warangal. The dependants of the deceased and the injured filed different claim petitions against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein. 4. In O.P.No.482 of 2003, which is the subject matter of C.M.A.No.995 of 2005, the injured claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In O.P.No.510 of 2003, which is the subject matter of C.M.A.No.1004 of 2005, the injured claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In O.P.No.483 of 2003, which is the subject matter of C.M.A.No.1682 of 2005, the son of the deceased Pedda Ramakka claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- stating that the deceased aged 58 years, was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. In O.P.No.488 of 2003, which is the subject matter of C.M.A.No.3564 of 2005, the injured claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. In all the claim petitions, the appellant corporation resisted the claims contending that the bus was stopped near Malkapur School turning, but still the auto, driven rashly and negligently, itself dashed against the bus and turned turtle. The case against the bus driver was claimed to have been managed and the corporation disputed all the claims of the claimants including its liability to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal framed issues in common in all the claims which were clubbed and tried together and the evidence was recorded in O.P.No.482 of 2003. 7. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and its quantum. 8. P.Ws.1 to 7 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-34 and Ex.B- 1 were marked during the common trial. 9. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common award firstly concluding the bus driver alone to be responsible for the accident. 10. In O.P.No.482 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on all counts due to the absence of any evidence of the doctor and referring to Exs.A-3 to A-5. 11. In O.P.No.510 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- due to non-examination of the doctor and referring to Exs.A-10 and A-11 about fracture of right humerus of the minor child. 12. In O.P.No.483 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the death of the mother of P.W.2 as equal to the minimum compensation for no fault liability in the absence of any other evidence. 13. In O.P.No.488 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- doubting the authenticity of Exs.A-14 and A-15 and with reference to the evidence of the injured P.W.4. 14. The Tribunal granted interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs on the amounts of compensation. 15. The corporation filed the appeals contending that the negligence of the auto driver, carrying 14 passengers and driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, was ignored and the compensation was awarded even without the necessary evidence. The corporation claimed the claims to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and desired the impugned awards to be reversed. 16. Heard Smt.G.Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant- corporation and Sri Ghanshyam Das Mandhani, learned counsel representing the claimants. 17. The point for consideration in these appeals is about the responsibility for the accident and justness of the compensation. 18. In the common judgment in M.A.C.M.A.No.725 of 2005 and batch, dated 08.12.2010, the question of responsibility for the accident was discussed and it was concluded that the fault of the bus driver alone caused the accident as found by the Tribunal. For the same reasons, the same conclusion should follow herein also. 19. In O.P.No.482 of 2003, the injured P.W.1 claimed to have suffered two fractures and other injuries for which P.W.1 claimed to have spent Rs.20,000/- towards treatment. Ex.A-3-Out Patient Chit showed swelling and deformity of right arm, while Ex.A-4-x-ray report and Ex.A-5-report refer to the fracture of right clavicle and right humerus. While the injuries appeared to be grievous, the grant of lumpsum compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards such injuries under all heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is conservative and not excessive and cannot be interfered with. 20. In O.P.No.510 of 2003, similarly the minor boy received a fracture of right humerus, for which there was corroboration from Ex.A-10-Radiology Report and Ex.A-11-C.T. Scan Report, but the fracture was sought to be compensated under all heads of damages only with Rs.10,000/- which cannot be further reduced by any means. 21. In O.P.No.483 of 2003, what was awarded was the minimum compensation that P.W.2 would have got even under no fault liability with which there can be no interference. 22. In O.P.No.488 of 2003, P.W.4 was awarded only Rs.10,000/- in spite of Ex.A-14-Discharge Card from Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and Ex.A-15-bunch of medical bills and P.W.4 claiming to have received fractures on the right arm and left clavicle and injuries on the right cheek and head. The absence of signature on Ex.A-14 led the Tribunal to suspect Exs.A-14 and A-15, but the fact that she was one of the injured in the accident being probablised by the other material on record, the grant of minimal sum of Rs.10,000/- in any view is not susceptible to any change. 23. The grant of costs on the amounts of compensation or interest at 9% per annum are also not deviant from the normally adopted standards and hence, all the appeals should fail. 24. In the result, these four appeals are dismissed, without costs. ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 27th January, 2011 MR/KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. NOs.995, 1004, 1682 and 3564 OF 2005 Date: 27th January, 2011 MR/KL