HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1041 of 2007 Date:21.12.2010 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. And: Madari Durgaiah and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1041 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2007 passed in O.P.No.1070 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and granted compensation of Rs.11,97,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The 1st respondent is the claimant in O.P.No.1070 of 2005. He filed the O.P. under Section 166(1)( c ) of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.17,67,400/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 23.05.2004. He was the owner-cum-driver of the auto bearing No.AP 36V 9029. On 23.5.2004, when he was returning to Eturnagaram with three passengers on board, driving the auto on the left side of the road, R.T.C bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 4388 came in high speed and dashed against the auto and thereby he sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Eturnagaram and from there to M.G.M Hospital, Warangal. Later he was again shifted to Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Hydrabad for treatment. He lost his total earning capacity and he became immobilized. He has been suffering from post-traumatic survical milopath. He claimed compensation against the Corporation as well as against the driver of the bus. The Corporation filed a counter resisting the claim of the claimant. The Corporation pleaded in the counter that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself and that the quantum of amount claimed by the claimant under different heads was on high side. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident is due to rash and has taken negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 4388? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined 6 more witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.7 apart from marking Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.C-1 to C-3. On behalf of the Corporation, one witness was examined as R.W.1. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 4388 and that the claimant received injuries and thereby sustained 90% disability and accordingly granted the compensation of Rs.11,97,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order dated 9.2.2007. The said order is assailed in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-claimant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal fixed the loss of earnings without there being any basis and therefore, the quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant as compensation is required to be reduced considerably. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent claimant supported the order impugned in the appeal. The only issue that calls for adjudication is whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and reasonable. P.W.1 is the claimant. He sustained serious injuries in the accident and he became immobilized. He took treatment in various hospitals. P.Ws.4 to 7 are the doctors who treated the petitioners. They categorically stated that the petitioner has been suffering from post- traumatic survical milopath and thereby he became immobilized. Their evidence remained unchallenged. No contra evidence has been adduced by the appellant-Corporation. By reading the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7, the only reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at is that the petitioner has lost his total earning capacity. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. Indisputably the claimant met with accident while he was driving auto and it proves his occupation as auto driver. Keeping in view of the nature and occupation, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal, the compensation awarded to the claimant cannot be said to be on high side. The way in which the compensation has been arrived at is in accordance with the well established principles as enunciated by this Court and also by the Apex Court. Therefore, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:21.12.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1041 of 2007 Date:21.12.2010 Gk.