HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.904 OF 2001 Dated: 27.04.2010 BETWEEN: A.P.S.R.T.C .. Appellant And Nagireddy Venkata Subba Reddy .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.904 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the APSRTC challenging the order, dated 30.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.234 of 1999. 2. Challenge to the award by the respondent corporation is against the finding of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 2238 was responsible for causing the accident by driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and also against the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is highly excessive and disproportionate. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimant. 4. As regards the finding that the accident occurred on 06.03.1998 around 2.10 PM while the claimant and the another were proceeding on a motor cycle as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, the contention of the appellant corporation is that in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent source, the Tribunal ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1, who being the injured himself. Absolutely, I see no force in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant corporation. PW.1 being the injured is competent to testify as to how in fact, the accident took place. His version is consistent with the averments of Ex.A.1-certified copy of the first information report which was registered at the earliest point of time. Further the appellant corporation is under an obligation to examine the driver of the RTC bus involved in the accident to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place. But the appellant corporation did not lead any evidence on its behalf. For non-examination of the driver of RTC bus, an adverse inference against the appellant corporation can be drawn to the effect that had the said driver examined, he would not have supported the version of the appellant corporation. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on this aspect is based on evidence and perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case and needs no interference. 6. The other question requires consideration is the quantum of compensation. The injured claimant (respondent) is stated to be an agriculturist and was aged 32 years on the date of accident and was getting income of Rs.70,000/- per annum. Subsequent to the accident, he is unable to cultivate the land and he leased out them and according to him, the supervisory loss is Rs.20,000/- per annum. Since the loss of earnings though not supported by any documentary evidence and being reasonable, it can be said to have been rightly arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 7. The claimant besides examining himself as PW-1, also examined RW1-doctor as PW-2 and marked Ex.A.2-certified copy of the wound certificate which indicates that apart from receiving simple injuries, the claimant sustained fracture to both bones of his right leg and the doctor PW.2, who examined the claimant, issued Ex.A.4, disability certificate stated in his evidence that the fracture resulted in deformity and limping and also thickening of right leg by ½”. The doctor assessed the disability at 20%. The learned Tribunal considering the annual loss of income as Rs.20,000/- and selecting the multiplier 17 relevant to the age of the deceased and considering the disability as 20% rightly assessed the compensation at Rs. 68,000/- towards loss of earnings and permanent disability and R.9,532/- towards medical expenses which was as per Ex.A.5-medical bills and added further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.82,532/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal being just and reasonable, needs no interference in this appeal. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the quantum of compensation is confirmed. However, the interest granted by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. With the above reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 27.04.2010 kvrm