THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.598 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.08.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.149 of 1998 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said claim application filed by the 1st respondent herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.02.1997. According to the claimant, on that day, he was travelling in a bus bearing No.KA 13F 420 and seated behind the driver’s seat and that on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver on NH-48, the bus dashed against the tyre cart and also dashed against a lorry bearing No.KA19/7914 belonging to the 2nd respondent, which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which the claimant sustained serious multiple injuries, which led to amputation of right leg at Adichunchunagiri hospital and Research Centre B.G.Nagar, where he was an inpatient from 08.02.1997 to 18.02.1997. He further pleaded that later he was shifted to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi and took treatment for about 20 days. According to the claimant, he was aged 22 years, unmarried and was earning Rs.4000/- per month as a representative of the film distributor and on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and amputation of leg, his future prospects and career prospects of marriage are lost. A case in Cr.No.11 of 1997 was registered against the driver of the bus. Appellant herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 3rd respondent-insurer also filed a separate counter. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s bus by its driver. The Tribunal however awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, K.S.R.T.C. filed the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the other lorry bearing No.KA 19/7914. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in taking Ex.A1-disability certificate issued by Dr. R.Shanmugha Sundaram though he was not examined to prove the contents of Ex.A1. 7. The impugned order would show that the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant’s bus. It is to be noted that the bus first dashed against the tyre cart and then dashed against another lorry bearing No.KA 19/7914. The driver of the appellant’s bus has not been examined and no other evidence was also adduced to show that there was any element of contributory negligence or any other contradicting factor that has led to the accident. The First Information Report-Ex.A4 would show that there is a head on collision, but in the absence of any contra evidence by the appellant, no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn simply because there was head on collision in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the appellant’s bus has dashed against the tyre cart before hitting the lorry. The impugned order would show that the evidence of P.W.1 does not suggest any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to probablize any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In the facts and circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s bus by its driver does not call for any interference as the plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellant remains totally unsubstantiated. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it is to be seen that the claimant has suffered amputation of right leg besides other multiple injuries and disfiguration of the face. The medical evidence-Ex.A6-wound certificate and Ex.A7-discharge summary would disclose the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the bills-Exs.A2 and A3 would disclose the expenditure incurred by him in connection with the treatment. Admittedly, the claimant was inpatient in the hospital for about ten days and subsequently he was shifted to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi, where he has undergone treatment for about twenty days. The claimant is young man aged 22 years and on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, which led to disfiguration of the face and also amputation of right leg, future prospects of the claimant are certainly shattered insofar as his career and marriage are concerned besides the fact that he has to live the rest of his life with permanent disability. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon a decision of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS v. MOHD.KHAJ RASOOL SAYYED @ MOHD.KHAJA MAIN SHAIK AND OTHERS[1] in support of his contention that in the absence of the evidence of a doctor, who issued Ex.A1-disability certificate, the contents of the said certificate of disability cannot be taken into consideration. 10. It is to be seen that in the present case, the claimant has suffered amputation of right leg and the physical permanent disability ensuing therefrom is telltale, notwithstanding the fact that the doctor, who issued Ex.A1, was not examined. The claimant is certainly entitled for compensation on account of the permanent disability that resulted from the amputation of the right leg upto the knee. Further, the Tribunal has taken the extent of disability only at 40% though in Ex.A1 it was stated that it is 65 %. 11. Be that as it may, irrespective of the extent of the disability, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the resultant amputation of the right leg, the claimant is certainly entitled for the compensation on account of the said disability. Having regard to the young age of the claimant, who was aged only 22 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 7.95 and taken the income of the claimant at Rs.2000/- per month and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained; the permanent disability suffered; the length of hospitalization the claimant has undergone; the age of the claimant and his future prospects, it is considered that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is a just and reasonable compensation. The claimant is however entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition instead of 9% as awarded by the Tribunal. But for the said modification in the rate of interest, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th September, 2011 Tsy [1] 2003 (2) An.W.R.281 (A.P.)