THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.2851 & 2943 OF 2002 DATED: 24-11-2009 C.M.A.No.2851 OF 2002 Between: Kakani Prasanth. ..... APPELLANT And V.Palguna Rao & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS C.M.A.No.2943 OF 2002 Between: APSRTC, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad & another. ..... APPELLANTS And Kakani Prasanth & another. .....RESPONDENTS COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals arise out of the order, dated 27-06-2002, in O.P.No.532 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the claim of the appellant in C.M.A.No.2851 of 2002 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. C.M.A.No.2943 of 2002 is filed by the APSRTC questioning the award and C.M.A.No.2851 of 2002 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. As both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 5. The claimant filed the application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24-06-1999. According to the claimants, he was studying B.Tech. II year in the ‘Gayatri Vidya Parishad college of Engineering’ and while he was proceeding to his house, an RTC bus bearing No.AP10Z 3150, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against him resulting in multiple injuries and he was lying in coma condition for twenty days. Initially, he was taken to King George hospital, Visakhapatnam and later, shifted to St.Joseph’s hospital, and Seven Hills hospital, Visakhapatnam. The claimant alleges that as a result of the accident he suffered sleeplessness, memory loss, lack of concentration and he was advised continuous medication for two years as a result of which his future career and prospects of higher education abroad were jeopardized. 6. 1st respondent-driver of the bus and the APSRTC filed counters opposing the claim and denying the liability. 7. During enquiry, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and three doctors, who treated him, were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the APSRTC. 8. 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 bus by its driver. It is further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, these appeals are filed. 9. P.W.1 testified that on that day he was proceeding from the college to his house on a scooter and while he was near Hanumathuwaka junction, an RTC bus coming from Palasa to Visakhapatnam dashed against the scooter resulting in fracture of skull and right clavicle bone and that he was shifted to King George hospital, Visakhapatnam and from there to Seven Hills hospital. Ex.A1-First Information Report would show that a case was registered against the driver of the bus. Ex.A2-copy of the M.V.I. report shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. The testimony of P.W.1 has not been discredited regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. The driver of the bus is not examined but the Conductor is examined as R.W.1. There is absolutely no reason for not examining the driver of the bus, who is the best witness to speak as to how the accident has occurred. In the absence of the evidence of the driver, the version of P.W.1 as to the manner in which the accident occurred remains unchallenged. It is not disputed that after due investigation the police filed a case against the driver of the bus and he was prosecuted. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the grievous injury sustained by the claimant; Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.46,558/- towards medical expenses, as covered by a bunch of bills-Ex.A16, and Rs.3442/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges to make a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained multiple injuries. The claimant has examined P.Ws.2 to 4, who treated him in different hospitals, and also filed the medical record-Ex.A3-wound certificate, Ex.A4-scan report, Ex.A5-discharge summary, Ex.A6-report of P.W.4 and Ex.A16- bunch of medical bills. 11. P.W.2-Professor of Neurology, King George hospital, Visakhapatnam deposed that he was one of the team of doctors who treated the claimant for the head injury. He gave the prescription-Ex.A16, wherein he advised the claimant to go for neuro psychological evaluation. As per Ex.A16, issued by him there was some dis-function of brain at that time and therefore he advised the patient to take medicines for two years as a precaution to prevent recurrence of fits. 12. P.W.3-Neuro Surgeon, who examined P.W.1 at St.Joseph hospital, deposed that P.W.1 sustained head injury with right temporal extra dural heamotoma and left temporal contusion and also had right temporo-parietal fracture of skull. He issued the discharge summary-Ex.A5 and prescribed medicines preventing the recurrence of fits after discharge. P.W.3, ofcourse, stated that the patient can attend to his normal duties, but there is a chance of decrease of memory, speech and concentration. He issued the wound certificate-Ex.A3 stating that the injury suffered by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. 13. P.W.4 examined P.W.1 for neuro-psychological assessment. According to her, P.W.1 had problems in comprehension of complex tasks and instructions and he had fatigability of attention, poor concentration and difficulty in alternating tasks, verbal memory and general slowness in his psycho motor activity. 14. The above medical evidence adduced by the claimants would clearly establish that the head injury sustained by the claimant in the accident has led to neuro psychological problems affecting his psycho motor activity besides the physical injury of fracture to the skull. Though the injury did not admittedly lead to any permanent disability, as such, the injury in fact, left an impact on the neurological capabilities of the claimant by slowing down the psycho motor activity leading to various functional deficiencies stated supra. Under those circumstances, having regard to the fact that the claimant was an young boy pursuing his B.Tech studies at the time of the accident, the future educational and career prospects of the claimant would have certainly suffered a set back on account of the head injury sustained by him, it is considered that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is rather inadequate. 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the injury sustained and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Though the claimant was not an earning member and there was no permanent disability leading to loss of earning capacity, still on account of the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, adversely affecting his educational and career prospects, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the loss of the future prospects on account of the injuries besides the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.46,558/- granted towards medical expenses as covered by the bills-Ex.A16 and Rs.3442/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges etc., does not call for any interference. 16. In the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition, and interest at the same rate on the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 17. In the result, C.M.A.No.2851 of 2002 is allowed in part to the extent stated above and C.M.A.No.2943 of 2002 filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November, 2009 Tsy