IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1298 OF 2003 Between : Nagam Seetharamaiah .... APPELLANT A N D Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its General Manager. . … RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1298 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the Order in M.V.O.P. No.1042 of 1999, dated 31.12.2002, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 27-09-1999 at about 10:00 P.M., while he was proceeding on his bicycle from Island Center to his house at G.B.C. Road, APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP10 – Z - 2959, belonging to the respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed from Ponnur side towards Baptla, dashed against him, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries to his left foot. A case in Crime No.156 of 1999 was registered by the Ponnur Police Station against the driver of the APSRTC bus. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Ponnur and thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur, where he took treatment as inpatient. As he suffered crush injury to his left foot, operation was conducted and skin grafting was done. Due to the injury to his left foot, it became curved, its movements got restricted and thus he became partially disabled and due to that he is limping and he is unable to walk. Prior to the accident, he was earning Rs.80/- a day. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he lost his earning capacity. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/. 3. The respondent Corporation – A.P.S.R.T.C. filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. Bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-2959? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount? 3. To what relief?” 5. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, driver of the bus involved in the accident was examined as R.W.1 and certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No.202 of 1999 was marked as Ex.B1. 6. Based on the evidence of the claimant as PW.1 and the driver of the bus as RW.1 and also other material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself but not the driver of the bus. Further, based on the evidence of PW.2, Professor of Orthopaedics, Kasturi Medical College, to the effect that the claimant suffered disability of 10 to 15%, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant under no fault liability against the respondent Corporation with interest at 9% per annum. 7. Aggrieved of the judgment of the Tribunal, claimant preferred this appeal, contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus and the same is evident from Ex.A-3 charge sheet, but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and relying on Ex.B.1, certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No.202 of 1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, erred in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself and accordingly awarded compensation only under no fault liability. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, and, if so, to what amount the claimant is entitled to the compensation? 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant – appellant is that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus in occurrence of the accident. He further contends that since the Tribunal held that the accident was proved, it cannot be accepted that there was absolutely no negligence at all on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus, as such, at least it has to be held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and certain amount has to be deducted towards contributory negligence, but the Tribunal awarded compensation only under no fault liability, which is unjustifiable. 10. It is a case where the claimant sustained crush injury to his left foot which is a serious one. Due to the crush injury, the foot became deformed and he is limping, which inconvenience he has to suffer through out his life. Further, while working also, claimant, who is a power pumps repairer, has to suffer inconvenience and the same would reduce his efficiency and earning capacity. 11. In the circumstances, I am of the view that apart from the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, awarding another Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the claimant would meet the ends of justice and the same is accordingly awarded. 12. Thus, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The interest on the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till its realization. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation along with accrued interest soon after its deposit. 13. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010. YVL