HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 3261 OF 2004 Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of October, Two Thousand and Ten Between G.Balaraju Appellant AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By its Managing Director, Mushirabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad and another Respondents JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 18.5.2004 passed in O.P. No. 559 of 2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Addl. Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, allowing the claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in part granting a sum of Rs.2,54,700/- against a claim of Rs.3.00 lakhs, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimant is the appellant. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above claim petition are that on 24.1.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. while the petitioner was standing at Sobhana bus stand, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-9/Z-324, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, proceeding from Secunderabad to Subashnagar, came on wrong side and ran over the left foot of the appellant, as a result of which he sustained crush injury resulting in amputation and injuries on other parts of the body. The petitioner underwent treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and E.S.I. Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police, Balangar registered a case in Cr. No.24 of 2002. The appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner and another, in a drunken brawl, were pushing each other on the road and the petitioner came in contact with the bus and, therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the appellant himself is negligent. It is further stated that the claim is exorbitant and out of proportion. On behalf of the appellant, he himself was examined as PW-1 and the doctor who treated him, was examined as PW-2. Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked to substantiate his claim. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the respondents that the appellant himself was negligent and came in contract with the bus in a drunken state, inasmuch as they did not substantiate the said plea by any cogent and acceptable evidence. With regard to the determination of the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, on the strength of Ex.A-6 salary certificate, has taken the salary of the appellant at Rs.5,823/- and adopting the multiplier of 7.68, appropriate to his age at 50 years as per Ex.A-8 Service Certificate, in terms of the decision in Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif (2003(4) ALD 183 (DB), has arrived at a sum of Rs.2,14,659/- proportionate to the percentage of disability at 40%, basing on the disability certificates, Exs. A-7 and A-9. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for purchase of medicines, transport and extra nourishment. Thus, in all, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,54,700/-, as stated supra. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that admittedly, the appellant was aged 50 years as on the date of accident and, therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 13 and, as such, the Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier of 7.68 appropriate to the age of 50 years. I see substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, I am inclined to adopt the multiplier of 13. Thus, taking multiplier of 13, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,63,355/- (Rs.5823/- X 40/100 X12X13). As can be seen from the record, there are no bills for the purchase of medicines. As such, having regard to the gravity of the accident and the nature of injury, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded under each of the heads pain and suffering a n d Medicines, transport and extra nourishment, is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each. Thus, the appellant, in all, is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,83,355/-, subject, however, to the condition of the appellant paying the deficit court fee. The Tribunal, has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. In view of the latest pronouncements of the Apex Court, the rate of interest is reduced to 7% p.a. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, thus, partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,74,700/- to Rs.3,83,355/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. With this enhancement in the quantum of compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the rest of the award is confirmed. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed October 28, 2010 MAS