IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH [29th] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2965 of 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Manuguru Depot, Khammam district … Appellant And: Sadineni Venkateswara Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2965 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.02.2007 in MVOP No.1456 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Khammam, wherein, the claim of the respondent herein was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,75,639/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. 3.The respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.09.2003. According to the claimant, while he was proceeding from Kothagudem to Palancha on a scooter and when he reached near old Palancha, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 28 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter, resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant. Palancha town PS registered a case in Cr.No.146 of 2003 against the driver of the bus. It is further pleaded that the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Palancha and from there he was shifted to Help Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada, where he was inpatient for 30 days. It is further pleaded that the claimant was a student, studying 3rd year Engineering course. 4. The appellant-APSRTC filed a counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle, RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 28 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount land from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief 6. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimant. RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of APSRTC. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,639/- as compensation, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver is not seriously challenged and even other wise, the evidence adduced by the claimant proves that the driver of the bus was at fault. As seen from the record, the claimant was aged 20 years and was studying 3rd year engineering and he suffered as many as 14 injuries, out of which, eight were grievous and they included, deformity of the right lower limb, fracture of shaft right femur, fracture of right tibia and fibula, fracture of maxilla, nasal bone mandible, fracture of facial bone, fracture of right temporal bone, fracture of left lateral orbital, fracture of zygomatic bone. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was treated in different hospitals and he was inpatient in Help Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for over a month. PW.2 Neuro Surgeon also testified to the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and also treatment rendered. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant has undergone surgical operation in different hospitals and he suffered permanent disability, leading to disfiguration of his face, because of the removal of the eyeball. Apart from the fact that the claimant has suffered multiple serious injuries and was hospitalized for a long time, the claimant also lost one academic year and his physical frame is also shattered. 8. The Tribunal taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and treatment undergone by him and the medical expenses incurred in connection with the treatment and also the fact that the claimant has lost his academic career as an engineering student, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of academic year and Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.75,639/- towards medical expenses as covered by the bills, making up a total sum of Rs.2,75,639/-. 9. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the permanent disability resulting from the major injuries sustained by the claimant, it is considered that the amount awarded is neither excessive nor unreasonable. In the circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is held not liable to be interfered with. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.07.2010 bss