THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1079 OF 2004 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL(SR) No. 37444 OF 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A. 1079 of 2004 is filed by the claimant and CMA (SR) No.37444 of 2002 is filed by the Insurance Company. 2. Since both appeals arise out of the same order passed in O.P.No.816 of 1995 dated 31-08-2001 by the Chairman Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short “the Tribunal”), they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3.The facts are as under:- The petitioner-claimant was a RTC driver attached to Picket depot at Hyderabad. While so, on 15-06-1995 the petitioner was coming from Lingsur to Hyderabad driving the bus bearing No.AP9Z 3511, when the bus reached near Kouthal village, in Rayachur District of Karnataka State, at about 7.15 A.M, one lorry bearing No. AHH 3544, which was coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the RTC Bus, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. A case was registered in Cr.No.37 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC by Kouthal Police. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Kouthal General Hospital and there from to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 16-06-1995 for further treatment. On 17-06-1995 his right leg was amputated. The petitioner sustained compound fractures, crush injury and other multiple injuries all over his body. After the accident, he became unfit for holding the post of Driver. There is no dispute that he was accommodated as a Shramik. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. 4. During the course of trial, the first respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and further contending that there was negligence on the part of the driver i.e., the petitioner and as such the liability ought to have been apportioned in between the lorry owner and APSRTC. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.AP9Z 3511 or the lorry No.AHH 3544? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-7 and Exs X-1 and X-2 were marked; while in support of the claim of the respondents, the policy of the crime vehicle was marked as Ex.B-1 by consent. 7. On the basis of the material on record, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,90,940/- with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company filed CMA 1079 of 2004 and APSRTC filed CMA(SR) 37444 of 2004. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The contention of the Insurance Company is that there was negligence on the part of the claimant himself as such the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation or at least the compensation awarded ought to have been apportioned between the lorry owner and APSRTC. 10. This is a case where injured was aged about 30 years and there is no dispute with regard to accident and the petitioner-claimant losing his right leg. Consequently, he was initially removed from service and subsequently after some reduction in rank he was employed as a Shramik at lesser salary. 11. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, as the petitioner/claimant suffered amputation of his right leg apart from other injuries and as he took treatment for about 3 months at various hospitals, he is entitled to substantial compensation. Moreover, on account of amputation of right leg, he lost several amenities in life and invariably he has to fix artificial leg that needs to be changed periodically. He must have suffered substantial pain during the treatment and throughout his life, he has to suffer inconvenience for want of right leg. His social status and income also have come down. In the circumstances, the court below ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs as claimed since he was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and he would have earned more salary in the capacity of driver for more than 20 years i.e., till his retirement and it cannot be compared to in the salary of Shramik where he is presently accommodated. 12. Coming to the question of apportionment of compensation, the complaint (Ex.A-1) shows that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner; where as the learned counsel contends that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and there was no evidence to show that there was negligence. May be, subsequently, the witnesses did not speak against him. As seen from the contents of Ex.A-1 FIR, there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and later during the course of trial it revealed that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. In the circumstances it has to be accepted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. as such at least 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards contributory negligence. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3 lakhs and the tribunal had already granted an amount of Rs.2,90,940/-, as such there is no need of change in the quantum of compensation. Thus the compensation of Rs.2,90,940/- as awarded by the tribunal is confirmed. However, in view of the latest legal position, the rate of interest is reduced from 12 % to 7% Per annum. 13. With above modification in respect of the rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J 5TH July, 2010 TSNR