HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.403 of 2007 & 446 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 M.A.C.M.A. No.403 of 2007: Between: Kommu Ramani. …Petitioner. And: Sardar Guru Bachan Singh and another. …Respondents. M.A.C.M.A. No.446 of 2007 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its General Manager (Now redesignated as Managing Director) Mushirabad, Hyderabad. …Petitioner. And: Kommu Ramani and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.403 of 2007 & 446 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the order passed on 1- 11-2006 in O.P.No.684 of 2004 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the injured- claimant seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was alleged that on 7-8-2003, the claimant along with her husband and others were traveling from Warangal to go to Dharmapuri on the eve of Godavari Pushkaralu in Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.AP-36-G-2781 belonging to her husband, the said car met with an accident when the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus driven by the 1st respondent which is belonging to the 2nd respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. bearing No.AP-10-Z-8353 allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and hit the car of the claimant and in this connection, Dharmapuri Police registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. The claimant, her husband and other injured were shifted to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and thereafter, they took treatment at Jaya Hospital, Warangal. The injured-claimant aforesaid claimed that she was hospitalized for 15 days and has incurred medical expenditure and has also sought compensation for 5% disability suffered by her. 2nd respondent - A.P.S.R.T.C. contested the said claim on the ground that its driving was not negligent and on the contrary on account of rain, the road had become slippery and the driver of the Maruthi Car itself lost control and hit the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus. Before the Tribunal, the injured-claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked F.I.R. as well as Charge Sheet as Exs.A.1 and A.2 respectively. On behalf of the A.P.S.R.T.C., R.W.1 was examined who was the driver of the offending bus who stated that he was not at fault at all but admittedly, he has not given any complaint against the driver of the Maruthi Car. The Tribunal considered issue No.1 in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 and did not accept the evidence of R.W.1 in view of the fact that he kept quiet without any police complaint against the owner of the Maruthi Car or its driver. If really, the driver of the Maruthi Car was at fault, such a conduct on the part of R.W.1 is not expected. The Tribunal therefore found on Issue No.1 that the accident was caused on account of negligent driving of the offending Bus. On issue No.2, the Tribunal relied upon Ex.A.4 Injury Certificate, Ex.A.5 Bunch of Medical Bills, Ex.A.6 Medical Prescriptions, Ex.A.8 Disability Certificate, Exs.A.9 and A.10 CT Scan Report with CT scan and Bunch of X-Ray Films together with Ex.A.7 Salary Certificate. On the basis of the evidence on record aforesaid, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.25,000/-towards pain and suffering and inconvenience and a compensation of Rs.23,400/- towards 5% disability Thus, an aggregate amount of Rs.77,870/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., was awarded by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the A.P.S.R.T.C. has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.446 of 2007 whereas the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.403 of 2007 seeking enhancement. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. as well as Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimant. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. that the finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 are required to be interfered in view of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and he has categorically stated that it is the Maruthi Car which lost control and hit the bus though he was driving the bus slowly. Learned counsel also stated that the claim for disability is totally unsustainable inasmuch as except a fracture of the right hand, the rest of the injuries suffered by the injured are simple injuries. He therefore disputes the claim of compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for the claimant on the contrary submits that the evidence of R.W.1 was found to be not trustworthy by the Tribunal as from the date of the accident till their evidence before the Tribunal, R.W.1 has not filed any complaint with the police or with the superiors of the A.P.S.R.T.C. The said driver also has not filed any counter in O.P. and remained exparte. So far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel states that the said finding is clearly based upon the medical evidence which was looked into by the Tribunal and in fact, justified enhancement is sought for on the ground that the injured-claimant has established the case of suffering disability under Certificate Ex.A.8 and the medical expenditure itself being about Rs.30,000/- as found under Ex.A.5. The Tribunal had granted only Rs.25,000/- to cover all the expenditure towards pain and suffering and medical expenses and nourishment etc., which is unduly low. Learned counsel therefore submits that the appeal of A.P.S.R.T.C. is liable to be dismissed and on the contrary, appeal of the claimant warrants at least marginal enhancement. I have considered the aforesaid rival contentions. So far as the contention on the 1st issue is concerned, I am unable to see any error on the part of the finding of the Tribunal inasmuch as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, that R.W.1 has not given any complaint with Department or to the police informing about the alleged fault of the driver of the Maruthi Car. He also remained exparte who did not controvert the allegations in the claim petition. The finding of Tribunal on negligence of the offending Bus belonging to the A.P.S.R.T.C. therefore warrants no interference. So far as Issue No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal ha rightly granted reimbursement of medical expenditure of Rs.29,470/- and has also granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain, suffering and inconvenience. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference as it is based upon the medical evidence under Exs.A.4 to A.10. So far as Disability is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the Disability at 5% as certified under Ex.A.8. The quantum of compensation worked out therefore, requires a revision inasmuch as the injured-claimant was aged 38 years and the appropriate multiplier as per II Schedule would be 16 whereas the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ([1]) would be 15. However, in this case, the claimant being only housewife having notional income, the multiplier in the II Schedule would be applicable and as such, the quantum of compensation as alleged by the Tribunal if taken into consideration, at Rs.3,000/- per month, the same would work out to Rs.36,000/- per year. Applying 5% disability thereof comes to Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.23,400/- which requires marginal enhancement to Rs.27,000/- by applying correct multiplier. In the circumstances therefore appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. except for scalling down the interest awarded from Rs.7.5% p.a., to 6% p.a., the decision cited supra, no further modification of the award is warranted. So far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned, the Disability compensation is required to be raised to Rs.27,000/- instead of Rs.23,400/-. By confirming the rest of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, both the appeals therefore are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 6-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.403 of 2007 & 446 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121