IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH (26TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2742 of 2003 Between: B.Krishnakumar … Appellant And: APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director & another … Respondents C.M.A.No.2830 of 2003 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director & another … Appellant B Krishnakumar … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2742 of 2003 and C.M.A.No.2830 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the order dated 17.02.2003 in OP No.866 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’], wherein the claim of the appellant in CMA No.2742 of 2003 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 2. CMA No.2830 of 2003 was filed by APSRTC questioning the award. As both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in both the appeals. Perused the record. 3. The appellant in CMA No.2742 of 2003 who is the claimant filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.06.1999. According to him while he was returning from Shamirpet on a scooter bearing No.AP 10 B 5070, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2177 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained serious injuries, including head injury and fracture of right leg and that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and a case in Cr.No.44 of 1999 was registered by Bolaram PS. The claimant further pleaded that he was working as Fitter Grade III in South Central Railways and that on account of the permanent disability resulting from injuries, he is denied promotion to the higher post. 4. The APSRTC filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the corporation, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver is not seriously disputed. Even otherwise, the evidence on record, particularly, Ex.A.1 FIR, Ex.A.2 charge sheet, coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would establish that the driver of the bus was at fault. 6. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.56,000/- i.e., Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothing and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, about which, there is no much dispute. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.96,000/- towards continuing or permanent disability. Learned standing counsel for APSRTC contends that the said amounts are highly excessive and without any basis. Learned counsel for the claimant while justifying the award passed by the tribunal further contends that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards transportation charges which the claimant is compelled to incur by way of auto fare every day to go to the office and come back to home on account of the permanent disability, which resulted from the injuries. 7. It is not disputed that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur and he was treated in the hospital as inpatient for about seven months and he underwent operation on 11.6.1999 in which a rod was inserted. PW.3 Medical Officer who examined and issued disability certificate Ex.A.8 testified that the right leg movement is totally restricted and the claimant is unable to squat and walk, without support of the stick and he cannot hold any weight and the disability is partial and permanent to the extent of 40%. Admittedly, the claimant has rejoined the job after discharge from the hospital. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the claimant has suffered any loss of promotional chances or that he was declared unfit to hold any promotional post and on that account he suffered any loss of income. The claimant has not examined any one from the concerned department in the railways to show that on account of the permanent disability resulted from the injuries, he was unfit to hold any promotional post and thereby claimant sustained loss of earnings or earning capacity. In the absence of any such evidence, the estimation made by the Tribunal regarding the loss of earning capacity at Rs.500/- per month has no basis at all and the amount ascertained in a sum of Rs.96,000/- and applying the multiplier 16 to assess the loss of future earnings is totally unsustainable. 8. Admittedly, the claimant has rejoined in the job and is getting his salary as usual and there being no evidence to show that he suffered any loss of future promotional chances or any future earnings, the question of estimating the compensation towards loss of future earning capacity by applying multiplier does not simply arise. However, the evidence on record show that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and his movements are restricted and he cannot walk without the aid of the stick and therefore, he has to necessarily engage auto for reaching the office and returning home. Under those circumstances, the claimant is certainly entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities of life on account of the permanent disability, though not towards loss of earning capacity. It is, therefore, considered just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life on account of the continuing permanent disability. 9. Learned counsel for APSRTC would submit that though medical bills Ex.A.6 would cover the expenditure to the extent of Rs.18,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is excessive. Though, Ex.A.6 medical bills are to a tune of only Rs.18,000/-, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the length of the treatment undergone by him, he must have necessarily engage the services of an attendant for his assistance during the long period of hospitalization and therefore, the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- out of Rs.30,000/- awarded can be adjusted towards the attendant charges. Under those circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges. Thus in all, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rs.56,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.30,000/-). 10. In the circumstances, the impugned award is modified accordingly awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amount. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 11. In the result, CMA No.2742 of 2003 filed by the claimant is dismissed and CMA No.2830 of 2003 filed by APSRTC is allowed in part to the extent stated above. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.11.2009 bss