IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTHEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3166 of 2003 Between: Madepalli Raghunath .. Appellant AND K.P. Rao and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 12-03-2003 in MOP.No.602 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellant was travelling in APSRTC Bus AP9-Z-7381 on 30-04-1998 and near Marikavalasa, the bus dashed against a tree at about 8.30 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. The appellant suffered fractures over the right leg and injuries all over the body including loss of one tooth in the lower jaw and dislocation of another tooth in the upper jaw. He was treated at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and Bheemunipatnam Police Station registered Crime No.114 of 1998. Even after discharge on 07-05-1998, he suffered a permanent disability and he was working as Service-in-Charge in Thomson T.V. Service, Visakhapatnam on a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from APSRTC represented by two of its officials and the driver of the bus. While the driver remained ex parte, the Corporation contested the claim denying the allegations and putting the claimant to strict proof. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the liability of the respondents for payment of compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6, X.1 and X.2. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, but still applying the rule of strict liability, found that that the respondents are liable to pay just and adequate compensation to the appellant for the injuries and their consequences. The Tribunal noted the injuries suffered by the appellant from Ex.X.1-Case Sheet and considered that grant of Rs.12,500/- for one fracture, Rs.7,000/- for three simple injuries, Rs.12,000/- for partial permanent disability, Rs.8,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earnings will be granting just and adequate compensation. On the total of Rs.42,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and also proportionate costs against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The claimant preferred this appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- should have been granted in the light of suffering multiple fractures in the right leg and injuries all over the body including the breaking of teeth. The claimant also contended that the medicines purchased were of the value of Rs.30,000/- and the monthly earnings also were fixed at a very low sum. Hence, he desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Sri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Appaiah Sarma, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and none appeared for the 1st respondent before this Court. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the strict liability suffered by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to justly and adequately compensate the injured claimant for the consequences of the injuries suffered in the accident to the bus had become final in the absence of any challenge by any party and the only question that remains for consideration herein is the quantum of compensation to be awarded. The evidence of PW.2, the doctor, who treated the injured immediately on admission into the hospital after the accident and who again examined him for assessment of disability, shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital with three fractures in the right leg alone and he found that the claimant suffered restricted and limited movements of right knee and painful limping, which amounts to 25% disability. He is further corroborated by Ex.X.1-case sheet, Ex.A.4-O.P. chit, Ex.A.5-Disability Certificate and Ex.A.6-X-ray and except making suggestions to the contrary, the cross-examination of PW.2 did not reveal any serious flaw in the claims of PW.2 to be rejected. The injured as PW.1 reiterated his claims about suffering the injuries claimed by him and he claimed to have spent Rs.30,000/- towards purchase of medicines and to be working as Service-in-charge for a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. Significantly, he did not state anything about other injuries apart from fracture in the right leg. But, Ex.X.1-case sheet itself shows that the appellant also suffered loss of one tooth in the upper jaw and breaking of one tooth in the lower jaw, apart from cut injury of the right lower lip. While the First Information Report probablises that the appellant would have been injured in the accident, Exs.A.3 to A.6, X.1 and X.2 should form the basis for assessment of the just compensation. If the claimant had suffered three fractures and loss of two teeth, in all they have to be computed as five grievous injuries and for the five grievous injuries and one simple injury on the right lower lip, the pain and suffering, if compensated even with reference to the scale adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, would come to Rs.26,000/-. The disability of 25% suffered by the appellant with reference to the right leg can be considered to have imposed a disability of 10% with reference to the functioning of the whole body and in the absence of any evidence about the employment or salary of the appellant apart from his own interested claims as PW.1, the income adopted for non-earning persons by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can be taken as the basis, which is Rs.15,000/-p.a. For the age of 35 years of the claimant, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and if 10% of future loss of earnings were to be accounted for, the same comes to Rs.22,500/-. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal directed reimbursement of whatever were proved by Ex.A.3-medical bills, but it did not award any sum towards attendant charges or damage to clothing or extra nourishment and other inevitable expenses, which he would have invariably incurred and grant of a further sum of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the sum of Rs.8,500/- may meet the just claim under such heads. Ex.X.1-Case Sheet itself shows that he was advised to take bed rest for four weeks even after discharge and given the nature of injuries, the claimant would have been disabled from attending his normal avocation at least for a period of two months and even if his monthly income were taken as Rs.2,500/- instead of Rs.1,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal, he will be entitled to grant of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. The total compensation awardable to the appellant thus comes to Rs.67,000/-. The Tribunal already awarded Rs.42,000/- towards compensation and therefore, the same should be enhanced by another Rs.25,000/- and given the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion, the same can be restricted to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs shall follow suit. In the result, the award dated 12-03-2003 in MOP.No.602 of 1998, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298