THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:322 of 2006 BETWEEN: The APSRTC rep. by its Vice-Chairman/ Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND 1. V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nancharaiah, Pleader’s Clerk, R/o. Gunduvari Street, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Claimant: Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Gade Vekateswara Rao The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the APSRTC represented by its Vice-Chairman/Managing Director, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 21.09.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The claimant, who is the injured, filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Act against the owner and driver of the RTC bus, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 1.10.2003, when he was proceeding on left side of road as pillion rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-16-AE-2590, at Revendrapadu village, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7486 belonging to the first respondent-corporation and driven by the second respondent-driver, came in opposite direction with high speed and hit the motor cycle, as a result, the claimant sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government hospital. 3. The respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition including the manner in which the accident took place and involvement of the RTC bus, and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by driver of second respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined. 5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal relying on Exs.A.1-FIR and A.2-charge sheet, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Regarding the quantum of compensation the Tribunal took the earnings of the claimant at Rs.2,100/- p.m. and as per the Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the disability of the claimant was assessed at 50%, and arrived at the annual income of the claimant at Rs.12,600/-, and after applying multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,200/- towards loss of future earnings, and Rs.35,800/- towards medical expenses and treatment. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation. Questioning the same, the APSRTC filed the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation and learned counsel for the claimant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.2,100/- p.m., and the same is without any basis. He also contended that the award of compensation of Rs.35,800/- towards medical expenses is excessive. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.4 it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Further the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.2-wound certificate, would go to show that the claimant sustained multiple injuries including fracture of both bones of right leg, laceration over mid leg, type-4 tibia condial fracture to right tibia, fracture of lateral femoral condial, fracture of styloid process of right radius, and multiple abrasions over the face, which are grievous. The claimant was treated as inpatient and operated. Ex.A.13-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board would go to show mal-union of right leg both bones fracture. Therefore the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.35,800/- towards medical expenses. Since the fact that the claimant is an advocate’s clerk was proved by Exs.14 and 15, though he claimed Rs.3000/- p.m., for non-proof to rely and non-payment of professional tax, the Tribunal took the income of the claimant at Rs.2,100/- p.m. and after deducting 50% disability, applied 17 multiplier and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, which in my considered opinion is not excessive, and the same need not be interfered with. 10. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence, I deem it appropriate to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js.