THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1521 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 17.01.2004, passed in O.P.No.319 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), whereunder a sum of Rs.2,01,314/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent in a motor vehicle accident, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed the present appeal. The respondent herein-claimant filed the claim petition alleging that on 16.03.1998, at about 6.30 pm., when he was proceeding from Chillagi to Siddapur on scooter bearing No.AP- 25/2868, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP.9/Z-3582 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result he fell down and sustained fracture of his right thigh, right leg and other injuries all over the body and shifted to hospital. He was advised to take bed rest for four months. For the said injuries, he was also operated and rods were inserted and had to undergone another operation for removal of the rods. He was working as a teacher, and also getting an income of Rs.4,000/- from agriculture. After the accident, he lost his earning capacity. Hence, he filed the claim petition. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident only due to the rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, when there is no pleading or evidence that the bus came on the wrong side and hit the injured and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant contended that the Tribunal took the evidence adduced by the claimant from a right perspective and awarded compensation, which is just and reasonable and hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the points to be determined in this appeal are as to - “1. Whether there is negligence on the part of the injured in causing the accident or not? 2. What is the just and reasonable compensation the claimant is entitled to?” POINT No.1: - I have perused Ex.A-2-Charge sheet, which was filed after investigation into the said accident, wherein it is clearly stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. Even in Ex.A-1-F.I.R., nothing is whispered as regards the negligence on the part of the injured in causing the said accident. This is the earliest document as regards the occurrence of the said accident and hence, more credence can be given to it. Though the appellant-Corporation pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the injured, they did not choose to examine the driver of the said R.T.C. or any passengers of the bus in support thereof. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the said R.T.C. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT No.2:- Admittedly, the claimant is working as a Head Master at Z.P.High School, Rampur. Ex.A-9 salary certificate was also filed. P.W-3-doctor deposed that he conducted surgery on the claimant on 17.03.1998 and inserted rods and skin grafting was done at hip joint. He also deposed that the claimant could not walk without the help of crutches. He further deposed that on 10.02.2003, he verified the old records and assessed the disability suffered by him as 70% permanent disability and there is shortening of leg by 2”, due to which he cannot walk without the help of others. He also issued Exs.A-13 and C-1-disbaility certificates to that effect. As regards the sum incurred by the claimant towards the treatment, he filed Exs.A-5 and A-6- prescriptions and Ex.A-6-Medical Bills. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-1 to discredit his testimony. P.W-2 one Ganga Goud was also examined on behalf of the claimant. He deposed that since April, 1998, he is assisting P.W-1 and is being paid Rs.1,000/- per month by P.W-1. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence proves the fact of the petitioner sustained permanent disability as a result of the accident, and his requiring the assistance of others to walk. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record from a right perspective and passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on higher side and also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the same is reduced from 9% to 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 09th December 2010 DR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121