THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.594 of 2010 Dated:- 10th June, 2011 Between APSRTC …Appellant/Respondent AND Mirza Gaffer Baig Respondent/petitioner THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.594 of 2010 JUDGMENT:- The A.P.S.R.T.C, represented by its Managing Director, filed this appeal challenging the award dated 21.07.2005 passed in O.P.No.560 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 23.03.2002 at about 03:15 P.M., while the claimant was driving his auto trolley bearing registration No.AP-9-V- 1104 from Erragadda towards Miyapur and when he reached Anjaiah Nagar Darga, Moosapet, Hyderabad, a bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP-10-Z- 6501, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind the auto trolley and dashed against the said auto trolley. The claimant sustained bleeding injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The claimant suffered fractures shaft femur, right side with swelling and deformity right thigh. He was operated on 30.04.2002 and he was discharged on 11.05.2002. The claimant had attended review check up on 29.05.2002, 29.06.2002 and 01.07.2003. The claimant also sustained injuries on the right eyebrow and developed problem in the eye bone and he was again admitted in the hospital and bone grafting was done on 23.08.2003 and he was discharged on 19.03.2003. Contending that he was the owner – cum – driver of the said auto trolley and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and that he became permanently disabled and lost his memory, the claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. 4. The respondent – APSRTC contested the matter and filed counter and denied all the material averments made by the claimant with regard to the manner of the accident as averred in the petition, age, occupation, income, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of his treatment undergone by him. The contention of the claimant that he sustained permanent disability resulting in functional disability has also been denied. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-10-Z- 6501? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? 6. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr.Y.Surender Rao, Medical Officer who treated the claimant in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. The Case-Sheet of the petitioner is marked as Ex.X.1. 7. On issue No.1, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to APSRTC. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimant sustained permanent disability and, therefore, he is entitled to Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of earnings on the basis of 40% disability, as certified by the doctor. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.29,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent /APSRTC preferred this appeal. 8. The main contention of the learned standing counsel for APSRTC/appellant is that the Tribunal awarded excessive amount as compensation and that though there is no evidence, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- per month and that the Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.29,000/- towards medical expenses without proper evidence. It is also his submission that in fact, the claimant himself was negligent in driving the auto trolley and the accident is not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to APSRTC. 9. Per contra, Sri K.Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation and no interference is required by this Court in the award. 10. I have considered the above rival contentions. The points that arise for consideration is this appeal are (1) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; and (2) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimant is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Point No.1:- 11. Admittedly, there is no contra evidence let in by the respondents to the self-serving evidence of the claimant and the documents marked on his behalf. The claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, had categorically deposed that he was driving the auto trolley at the time of the accident and when he reached Anjaiah Nagar Darga, Moosapet, the offending bus came at high speed from his behind and dashed against his auto trolley. A suggestion was given to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that he suddenly turned the auto trolley to the Miyapur side without observing the offending bus. Except giving suggestion to P.W.1, the respondent/APSRTC had not let in any evidence in support of its contentions. It had also not examined it’s driver who could have thrown some light with regard to the manner of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence to the evidence of the claimant, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to APSRTC cannot be said to be incorrect. Point No.2:- 12. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, the claimant has examined P.W.2 – Dr.Y.Surender Rao, Professor, Orthopedics, Osmania General Hospital who previously worked as Professor of Orthopedics, Gandhi Medical Hospital, Secunderabad, and treated the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. Ex.A.2 is the Discharge Card of the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. According to P.W.2, the claimant was operated on 30.04.2002 and was discharged on 11.05.2002 with an advise to continue Antibiotics, Insulin and Physiotherapy. The claimant also attended review check up on 29.05.2002, 29.06.2002 and 01.07.2003. Subsequently, the claimant developed problem in eye bone and he was again admitted in the hospital and bone grafting was done to him on 23.08.2003 and he was discharged on 19.03.2003. Ex.A.6 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, which goes to show that the claimant sustained 40% disability. P.W.2 was cross-examined at length and he clarified that on the basis of function of the Hip and Knee Joint and problem in Gate, the disability certificate was issued. According to P.W.1 (claimant), he was aged about 50 years as on the date of giving of evidence. It is argued that the claimant did not refer about any injury to his eyebrow, but as seen from Ex.X.1, the doctor who admitted the claimant had noted the injury of 5” X ½ X ½ over right eyebrow. Admittedly, the claimant sustained fracture of right femur and he was operated for the same. 13. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Considering the nature of injury, period of treatment and operation undergone by the claimant, I am of the view that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and is based on the evidence on record. The claimant filed bills to a tune of Rs.29,000/- and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding appropriate medical expenses. Though the claimant sustained 40% disability, but considering the nature of his profession, it appears that the functional disability will be more than 40%, but anyhow, there is no cross appeal by the claimant. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- per month and the same appears to be reasonable. 14. It is settled law that every Tribunal sitting for adjudication of the claims pertaining to motor accidents has to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. What is just and reasonable compensation has to be ascertained and determined by the Tribunal basing upon the evidence. When the Tribunal determines certain amount as just and reasonable compensation, which is less than the amount claimed by the claimant, the Tribunal need not restrict the award to the amount of compensation actually claimed by the claimant but should award the same amount of compensation arrived by it as just and reasonable compensation. 15. In the instant case, the Tribunal, basing on the judgment of the Apex Court case between Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh[1], wherein it was held that the there is no restriction on the powers of the Tribunals to award only the amount claimed and the Court/Tribunal has to award ‘just’ and ‘reasonable’ compensation arrived by it. 16. In the light of the above, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. However, in the circumstances, no costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 10th June, 2011 Bvv [1] 2003 ACJ 12