HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 593 of 2003 DATED: .11.2010 Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. rep. by its Managing Director 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn., Bhainsa, through Depot Manager .. Appellants And Shaik Babu .. Respondent JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2002 made in O.P. No. 718 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the claimant was awarded a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The facts of the case in brief are that on 02.03.1998, at about 10.30 a.m., when the petitioner was traveling by A.P.S.R.TC. Bus bearing No. APZ 7064 from Neela towards Jankampet and reached near Veerannagutta, the driver of the bus drove it at high speed, in a rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, due to which, the spare tyre and other rods in the bus fell on the petitioner, as a result, his left shoulder and left collar bone were fractured and he also received injures on other parts of his body. He was treated at Government hospital, Nizamabad. The police of Yedpalli Police station registered a case in Cr. No.34 of 1998 under Section 337 IPC. Hence, the claimant filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. To substantiate the case of the claimant, he got examined himself as PW1 and others as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Nobody was examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the Corporation. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. has contended that the bus bearing No. APZ 7064 did not involve in the alleged accident and the respondent-claimant did not suffer the alleged injuries. Even though the accident is alleged to have occurred on 02.03.1998 near Veerannagutta village, but the complaint was preferred on 05.03.1998 i.e. three days after the accident. He has further contended that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 - the claimant and PW3 - the alleged witness to the accident. As per the evidence of PW3, the bus is alleged to have hit the culvert and the respondent-claimant is stated to have suffered injuries. The learned counsel further contends that though the police registered Cr. No. 34 of 1998 against the R.T.C. bus driver, no charge sheet has been filed till date. His further contention is that the question of disability does not arise in the case of fracture of clavicle bone granting a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- in all heads is on the higher side so also the interest at 9% p.a. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- claimant contends that even from the evidence of PW3 – the alleged eye-witness, the bus had hit the culvert and turned turtle the respondent-claimant suffered injuries; He further contends that in any case having regard to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, it cannot be said that the APSRTC bus did not involve in the accident and the driver was not rash and negligent in driving it. The learned counsel for the claimant further contends that as per the evidence of PW2 - medical witness coupled with Ex.A3 – Disability certificate, the respondent- claimant has suffered 25% permanent partial disability and that the Tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C., the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant and perused the material placed on record. So far as the delay in lodging the police complaint as contended by the learned Standing Counsel is concerned, it is to be observed that the delay both in filing the complaint and laying charge sheet is not material for deciding the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even though the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A3 – Disability certificate reveals that the claimant suffered 25% of the fracture injury in the accident, it is to be noticed that it is in the medical regime to decide whether the fracture of clavicle bone results in disability or not. Moreover, though it is alleged that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW3, the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C. did not choose to adduce evidence in support thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any major discrepancy in their evidence disentitling the respondent-claimant from claiming any compensation. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – A.P.S.R.T.C. are not sustainable in law. That apart, in spite of the fact that that the Tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method, it should be taken note of that since it is a case of simple injury suffered by the respondent-claimant including fracture of clavicle bone resulting 25% of permanent partial disability and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner in all heads, and the same cannot be found fault with. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is rightly justified in awarding just and reasonable compensation, and the order impugned in this appeal does not warrant interference from this Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 11-11-2010 bcj