HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2299 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the APSRTC against the order in O.P. No.510 of 2000 dated 22-04-2002 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Appellants, APSRTC, are respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2, who is driver of the APSRTC bus involved in the accident, is respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, Silmoji Bhaskar @ Srimoj Bhaskar, is that on 03-07-2000 at 6-10 PM, while he was coming on his TVS Safari from N.T.P.C. Godavarikhani, near Singareni Collieries Company main check post, on Rajivrahadari, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9-Z-9694 being driven by its driver, respondent No.1, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent and zigzag manner, dashed against the claimant and on account of that he fell down and the bus ran over on his TVS safari. On complaint, a case in Crime No.57 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Section 338 IPC against respondent No.1 and investigated into. The claimant suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and left side and upper side of the forehead, injury on small finger, ring finger, left foot, chest and waist. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Civil Hospital, Ramagundam and after preliminary treatment he was shifted to Surya Hospital, Godavarikhani where he was operated on his broken leg and inserted rods. He was inpatient till 06-08-2000. He was working as “Badili Filler” in Singareni Collieries Company Limited and earning Rs.6,985/- per month and due to injuries he is unable to work as earlier. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. 5. Respondent No.1, driver of the APSRTC bus, filed his counter denying the allegations against him and contended that due to negligence of the claimant himself accident took place and that the claim is excessive. He also averred that he is employee of respondent Nos.2 and 3 - APSRTC, as such, they are liable to pay the compensation, if any. 6. Respondent No.3, APSRTC, filed counter denying the allegations of the claimant and that accident took place due to negligence of the claimant only but not respondent No.1. 7. Based on the rival pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus No.AP-9-Z-9694 by its driver. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom. 3. To what relief.” 8. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Es.A-1 to A-20. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.81,000/- to the claimant against all the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation, APSRTC filed this appeal. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC – appellant contends that respondent No.1, driver of the APSRTC bus, was not negligent in driving the bus, in fact there was negligence on the part of the claimant in driving his two wheeler, TVS Safari, and hitting the bus in the opposite direction while overtaking a jeep, but the Tribunal ignoring the evidence of RW.1, respondent No.1, and only relying on the evidence of the claimant, PW.1, without examining as to whether there was any contributory negligence, held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded compensation, which is also on higher side, as no doctor was examined to prove the injuries and partial disability suffered by the claimant. 11. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 12. Evidence of RW.1, driver of the bus, whose evidence, according to the APSRTC, was ignored by the Tribunal is that accident took place as the claimant while trying to overtake a jeep fell down on the backside of the bus. But, the same was not suggested to PW.1 in his cross-examination. A vague suggestion was put to him saying that jeep was going before him and accident took place due to his negligence. In the circumstances, the contention of the APSRTC that there was no fault on the part of respondent No.1 and due to negligence of the claimant himself accident occurred cannot be accepted and, as such, finding of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with in this regard. 13. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, evidence of PW.1 reveals that claimant suffered compound fracture of right tibia and fibula, lacerated injury on forehead, little finger, ring finger, left foot, chest and on waist. He was scanned and operated on the fractures in a private hospital and steel rod was inserted and that he was inpatient for 35 days. Due to the accident and compound fracture of tibia and fibula, his right leg is shortened, he is limping, he has to undergo a further surgery for removing of inserted rod and that he suffered disability of 20%. Further, he could not attend to his duties for a period of seven months. It is also established that he is an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and working as “Badli Filler” and his gross salary was Rs.6,985/- per month. Claimant also produced medical bills and prescriptions of the private hospital, where he took treatment. Vehicle of the claimant was also damaged. Claimant also produced x-rays as well as photographs of the injuries suffered by him. 14. Thus there is no dispute that claimant was scanned, operated and treated in private hospitals, he was inpatient for more than a month, suffered partial disability, limping and there was shortening of leg, as such, he must have incurred reasonable amount towards treatement and medical expenses and also transportation, attendant charges and extra-nourishment. Further, he did not attend to his duties for a period of more than six months. 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/- for the two fractures and simple injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, totalling to Rs.81,000/-, which is not at all on higher side, in fact the same is on lower side. However, as the claim of the claimant is only for Rs.1,00,000/- and there is no appeal or cross-objections on his behalf, compensation cannot be enhanced. Thus, there are no grounds to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. However, as per the latest law, rate of interest can be reduced to 6% per annum from 9% and it is accordingly reduced. 17. Except the above modification in rate of interest, confirming the remaining portion of the impugned order, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 23, 2010. PV