IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, the Eleventh day of August Two Thousand And Nine PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (CMA) NO : 2697 of 2006 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 3178 of 2004 dated 18/09/2006 on the file of the court of the ) Between: Maqbool Shareef S/o.Late Kareem Shareef R/o.H.No.7-1-632/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director Office situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 APSRTC rep., by its Manager Office situated at Uppal Depot R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: M/SJAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SUNDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (CMA) NO : 161 of 2007 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 3178 of 2004 dated 18/09/2006 on the file of the court of the ) Between: 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad X Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Manager, Uppal Depot, R.R.District The Manager, Uppal Depot, The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation R.R.District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Maqbool Shareef S/o.Late Kareem Shareef R/o. H.No.7-1-632/A, Bapunagar, S.R.Nagar Post, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: M/SJAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: . THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO MACMA. NO. 2697 OF 2006 AND MACMA. NO. 161 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A. No. 2697 of 2006 is filed by the claimant whereas the M.A.C.M.A. No. 161 of 2007 is filed by the APSRTC against the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad. The award was passed by the claims Tribunal granting an amount of Rs. 3,06,000/- as compensation to the injured claimant in a claim petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the accident occurred due to the involvement of the bus belonging to APSRTC. 2. Challenging the correctness and legality of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the above mentioned two appeals have been preferred. 3. In M.A.C.M.A. No. 2697 of 2006, the claimant assailed the award on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and he seeks enhancement of compensation. 4. In M.A.C.M.A. No. 161 of 2007, the Corporation challenged the award on the ground that the accident was in fact occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal wrongly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R.W-1 who was driving the RTC bus at relevant time and as such the appellant APSRTC cannot be fastened with liability at all. 5. This apart, the Corporation also assailed the award on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on higher side in as much as considering the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- and applying multiplier 16. Thus, according to the Corporation, the amount of compensation granted to the claimant deserves to be reduced in the appeal. 6. The following points would arise for consideration in these two appeals for their disposal. 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus or whether it was due to the negligence of the claimant himself? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the APSRTC as well as the injured claimant. Point No.1: 8. In regard to the question whether the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus, the evidence available on record is that of P.W-1, the injured claimant, the certified copy of the first information report which is marked as Ex.A-1 and the certified copy of charge sheet which is marked as Ex.A-2 on behalf of the claimant and the oral evidence of the driver of the RTC bus who is examined as R.W-1 on behalf of the Corporation. 9. P.W-1, the injured claimant pleaded in his claim petition and also stated in his deposition before the learned Tribunal that on 03.11.2004 at 8.30 am while he was proceeding on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter AP 23 F 7350 towards Miyapur , the RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6544 belonging to APSRTC Uppal Depot being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed his scooter near Kukatpalli traffic police station and the bus ran over his right leg, causing a crush injury and he also sustained injuries on the head, both the arms and other parts of the body. 10. As against this, the APSRTC examined its driver as R.W-1 to prove its contention that the accident was on account of the negligence of the claimant himself. R.W-1 stated in his evidence before the Tribunal that the petitioner scooterist who was coming from behind tried to overtake the bus, in that process collided with a cyclist and dashed the rear side of the bus, as a result of which, the scooter fell down and the claimant received injuries. His version accords with the written statement filed by the APSRTC. 11. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of R.W-1 and placing reliance on the evidence of P.W-1 and also the documents Exs.A-1 and A-2 recorded a positive finding that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver R.W-1. 12. Admittedly, the accident took place near Kukatpally traffic police station at about 8.30 am. If really the claimant scooterist with a view to overtake the bus collided with a cyclist and dashed the scooter on the rear potion of the bus and fell down, absolutely there is no possibility for the bus to run over the right leg of the petitioner causing a crush injury. Further, the evidence of R.W-1 that he observed the scooterist while he was at a distance of 30 feet falsifies the entire theory put forth by the Corporation for the reason if the scooterist dashed the rear portion of the bus, it was not at all possible for R.W-1 driving the bus to observe the scooterist. This apart, Ex.A-1 certified copy of the first information report which was lodged at the earliest point of time by a third party and the contents of Ex.A-2 certified copy of the charge sheet which indicate that after thorough investigation the police filed charge sheet against R.W-1 for the offence under Section 338 of IPC lend assurance to the version of P.W-1. Thus, the evidence on record as well as the circumstances in which the accident took place clearly indicate that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6544 by R.W-1. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect being based on evidence and reasoning does not require any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the APSRTC. 13. The next question requires consideration is as to whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable or it requires any modification? 14. It is the contention of the injured claimant that he is driver by profession, aged 42 years on the date of accident and he was engaged in the business of supplying water to various residential apartments and hotels and thereby earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He did not adduce any documentary evidence in proof of his avocation. However, he examined one Yusuf Sharif on his behalf to prove his income. Admittedly, no document was filed to prove that the claimant was a driver by profession. The learned Tribunal for the purpose of computing compensation arrived at his income at Rs.2,000/- per month. Even if the claimant failed to establish that he was a driver, the income arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not reasonable and the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month and, therefore, the same can be accepted. Not acceding to either the contention of the claimant or the contention of the APSRTC. The fact that he was aged 42 years on the date of accident is not disputed. As regards the appropriate multiplier as per the recent decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] rendered by the Supreme Court, it is 14, but not 15 which was selected by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the annual income of Rs.36,000/- has to be capitalised with 15. This apart, in view of the fact that the contention of the claimant that he is a driver by profession is not proved, the Tribunal rightly considered the disability at 70% and the contention of the claimant that the disability shall be taken as total, cannot be accepted. 15. The contention of the insurance company that the disability is not proved by the claimant by examining any doctor, cannot be accepted because there is no dispute about the fact that the right leg of the petitioner was amputated and the documents such as Ex.A-3, the certified copy of MLC, Ex.A-7 photographs, Ex.A8 disability certificate and Ex.A-10 original discharge card leave no manner of doubt whatsoever regarding the petitioner undergoing operation in Gandhi hospital and the amputation of his right leg. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 15 x 70/100) towards loss of earnings and permanent disability. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, the kind of treatment he has undergone and the fact that ultimately his right leg had to be amputated, the amount of Rs.40,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering being appropriate needs no interference. However, the medical expenses of Rs.5,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal being very low, despite the fact that the petitioner had undergone treatment in a Government hospital, it can be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,500/- which is granted by the Tribunal towards transport charges being appropriate needs no interference. The amount of Rs.2,500/- granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment being very low requires enhancement and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards extra nourishment. The amount of Rs.4,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of past earnings being reasonable needs no interference. The interest granted by the Tribunal being in accordance with law needs no interference. 16. Consequently, the injured claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,49,500/- which is just and reasonable instead of Rs.3,06,000/- which was awarded by the Tribunal below. The enhancement would be Rs. 1,43,500/-. The claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,43,500/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified from Rs.3,06,000/- to Rs.4,49,500/-. M.A.C.M.A. No. 2697 of 2006 filed by the claimant is allowed. M.A.C.M.A. No. 161 of 2007 filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Date: 11.08.2009. R. KANTHA RAO, J MRKR ...........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/MACMA{AP} [1] 2009(2) L.S. 29 (S.C.)