THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No.578 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.01.2006 in OP No.1541 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge Hyderabad wherein the said claim application filed by the Respondent-claimant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent-claimant. Perused the record. 3 The Respondent filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs for the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.04.2001. According to the claimant on that day while he was proceeding on his scooter towards military center at 5.30 p.m. and when he reached Tippu Khan Bridge, an RTC bus bearing No. AEZ 4515 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Respondent, as a result of which, he sustained fracture on the left leg besides other injuries. The Respondent-claimant was taken to military hospital Golconda for treatment where he underwent surgery for the fracture injury. On his complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.90 of 2001 against the driver of the RTC bus. According to the claimant, on account of the disability resulting from the injuries, he was discharged from the military service. The appellant – RTC filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 4 The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the Petitioner received injuries in the accident that took place on 24.4.2001 at about 5.30 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ-4515 by its driver? ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the Respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 5 During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant - RTC. 6 On a consideration of the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said award, the RTC preferred the present appeal. 7 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the medical evidence on record shows that the disability was only 30%, but, however, the Tribunal has taken the same as 50% without any basis. The learned counsel for the Respondent- claimant seeks to justify the award on the ground that the claimant, on account of disability, was discharged from military service and therefore, the disability ought to have been taken as 100%. But the Tribunal has taken the same only at 50%. 8 It is not in dispute that by the date of accident, the Respondent was working as Gunner in the military service and was aged 35 years. The salary certificate Ex.A.4 shows that the claimant was getting a total salary of Rs.7,829/-. The Tribunal, however, has taken the salary of the claimant only as Rs.6,500/- p.m while referring to the same document i.e. Ex.A.4. The claimant has adduced evidence showing that he was getting a total salary of Rs.7,829/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration without unilaterally taking the reduced amount of Rs.6,500/-. 9 It is not in dispute that after discharge from the service, the Petitioner was getting a pension of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Taking the same, the loss of earnings of the claimant would come to Rs.5,829/- p.m. 10 The medical evidence of P.W.3 the doctor who treated the claimant coupled with the certificate of disability Ex.A.8 issued by him would show that the claimant suffered only partial permanent disability to the extent of 30%. As seen from Ex.A.8, the fracture of both bones of the leg was united and there was only stiffness of left ankle and stiffness of left knee. In his evidence P.W.3 stated that he estimated the disability on account of the above stiffness of ankle and knee at 15% each, which comes to 30% in all. Ignoring the said medical evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A.8, the Tribunal has estimated the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 50%, without there being any basis. When the claimant has adduced expert evidence in the form of the medical officer who examined him and issued the disability certificate, the Tribunal ought not to have ignored the said medical evidence and made estimation of its own regarding the percentage of disability without there being any basis in the evidence for such estimation of 50%. When the Tribunal has chosen to discard the medical evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to have recorded reasons for doing so. The impugned order does not disclose any reasons for discarding the medical evidence available on record nor does it reveal any reasons for making the estimation of disability at 50%. 11 It is, therefore, held that the approach made by the Tribunal is not objective as there are no valid or justifiable grounds for ignoring the medical evidence. The Tribunal ought to have taken the extent of partial permanent disability at 30% as estimated by P.W.3 in Ex.A.8. 12 The loss of earning capacity on account of 30% disability, would, therefore, come to Rs.1,749/- (30% of Rs.5,829/-). Applying multiplier of 16, which is appropriate to the age of the claimant, the compensation on account of loss of earning capacity would come to Rs.3,35,808/- 13 The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for both the grievous injuries together. The learned counsel for the appellant – RTC would submit that as per the II Schedule of the Act, only a sum Rs.5,000/- can be awarded for each grievous injury. However, having regard to the fact that no amount was awarded towards medical expenses, as the claimant has undergone treatment at military hospital free of cost, it is considered that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.25,000/- need not be disturbed. 14 The Tribunal, however, awarded RS.5,000/- towards extra nourishment which is just and proper. 15 Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs.3,65,808/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.3,66,000/-. The claimant is entitled for the said amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The award is modified accordingly. 16 The appeal is allowed partly to the extent stated above. ---------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPTHY, J. 10.06.2011 Kvsn Note: Return Ex.A.5 to the Respondent as per the orders passed in MACMAMP No.578 of 2009 Dated 28.02.2011.