IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.668 of 2005 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Ragolu Venkata Ramanaiah @ Ramanaiah ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kalakuri Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad – the respondent in O.P.No.306 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nellore had preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 3. The respondent in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal – the petitioner in O.P.No.306 of 2003 aforesaid filed the said O.P. under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- for injury sustained by him in a road accident which had taken place on 30-09-2002. 4. The Tribunal in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded evidence of PWs.1 to 4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-18 and ultimately came to the conclusion that O.P.No.306 of 2003 to be partly allowed with proportionate costs and interests ordering the appellant herein – the respondent in the said O.P. to pay the petitioner in the said OP a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees one lakh, sixty one thousand only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the Advocate fee was fixed at Rs.1,800/- and further it was directed that the above amount shall be invested and paid as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred. Sri K. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of awarding only Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses though there is no acceptable evidence in this regard. The learned counsel also would maintain that the amount awarded towards future medical expenses also being excessive, the same to be modified. Thus, the learned counsel would conclude that in the absence of acceptable evidence the Tribunal partly allowed the OP and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent had taken this court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal and would maintain that absolutely no evidence had been let in on behalf of the appellant herein – the respondent in the aforesaid O.P. and on appreciation of evidence available on record the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to be dismissed. 7. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred as petitioner and respondent as shown in O.P.No.306 of 2003 aforesaid. It is needless to say that the petitioner in the said OP is the respondent in this appeal and the respondent in the said OP is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aforesaid. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record the following points that arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the interest of 9% p.a., granted by the Tribunal to be confirmed or to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 9. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- For the purpose of convenience the point Nos.1 and 2 are being discussed together. The particulars and the details of the compensation claimed by the Claimant – petitioner, the respondent in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as hereunder: SPECIAL DAMAGES: Loss of earnings Rs.55,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.80,000/- Attendant and special diet Rs.10,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Scooter damages Rs.10,000/- GENERAL DAMAGES: Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/- Compensation for loss of earning power and permanent disability. Rs.80,000/- TOTAL Rs.2,65,000/- 10. It is the case of the respondent in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal – the petitioner in the O.P. that on 30-09-2002 at about 3.00 p.m. while the petitioner was proceeding to his house at Kothur from Nellore on a scooter bearing No.TMG 3523 and when he reached Panchayat Office, Narayanareddipet village, an A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing R.C.No.A.P.9/Z-5738 belonging to the respondent corporation being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction without blowing horn and dashed the scooter from its right side while crossing an on-going vehicle and consequently, the petitioner received injuries. The petitioner was admitted in Jayabharat hospital, Nellore and from there he was shifted to Saradhi Ortho Centre, Nellore and still he is taking treatment periodically in the same hospital. He became permanently disable. Since the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing RC.No.AP-9Z-5738, the respondent corporation, the owner of the said bus, is liable for compensation. 11. The respondent corporation in the OP – appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal denied the allegations in the OP. It was further stated by the Corporation that on the day of accident at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioner while coming on the scooter suddenly turned his head and saw on his back side while driving and in that process, he lost control over the scooter and came across the right side road margin and on seeing the same, the driver of the bus stopped the bus but in spite of the same, the petitioner dashed the bus on the front right side corner and thereby the petitioner received injuries. It is further contended that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation since the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner himself i.e., the respondent in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 12. On the strength of these pleadings the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the vehicle of respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? 13. Before the Tribunal the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 was recorded and under noted documents had been marked: Ex.A-1 Attested Xerox copy of First Information Report in Crime No.295/ 2002 of Nellore Rural Police Station Ex.A-2 Attested Xerox copy of wound certificate issued by Jayabharat hospital Nellore Ex.A-3 Attested copy of charged sheet in C.C.No. /2002 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore Ex.A-4 Discharge summary, dated 02-11-2002 issued by Saradhi Ortho Centre, Nellore Ex.A-5 Discharge summary, dated 18-12-2002 issued by Saradhi Ortho Centre, Nellore Ex.A-6 Discharge summary issued by Jayabharat Hospital, Nellore Ex.A-7 Bunch of medical bills issued by Jayabharat Hospital, Nellore Ex.A-8 Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A-9 Bunch of prescriptions issued by Jayabharat Hospital, Nellore Ex.A-10 Bunch of prescriptions issued by Dr.C. Vijaya Sarathi, Nellore Ex.A-11 Certificate issued by Dr. C. Vijaya Saradhi, Orthopedic Surgeon, Nellore Ex.A-12 Prescription dated 04-12-2003 issued by Dr.Sannapareddy Krishna Reddy, Bone Joint and Spine Surgeon, Soujanya Orthopedic and Spinal Centre, Nellore. Ex.A-13 Certificate issued by Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Indukurpet Bit-11. Ex.A-14 Xerox copy of licence in the name of the petitioner issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore. Ex.A-15 Xerox copies of certificate of registration relating to tractors and trailers Ex.A-16 Certificate dated 16-03-2004 issued by the Personnel Officer, S.L.S. Power Limited, Nellore Ex.A-17 Bunch of X-ray films Ex.A-18 Case sheet issued by Jayabharat hospital, Nellore 14. The Tribunal appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and recorded reasons in detail, answered the issues and ultimately came to the conclusion that the OP to be partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees one lakh, sixty one thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 15. In a decision between U. Kanakadurgamma and others v. D. Suryanarayana Raju and other[1] it was held that: “It cannot be forgotten than even simple injuries or minor injuries will result in painful experience to the victim and it takes 3 to 4 weeks to completely cure them. It is true that there is no law of precedent for assessment of compensation since it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But, it cannot be forgotten that the identical cases like precedents and compensation cases play very important role of having certainty and uniformity in rendering decision.” 16. Further reliance was placed on A. Yanadamma and others v. G. Sreenivasulu Reddy and another[2] wherein it was held that: “In an injury claim case, the following items of compensation are to be considered and awarded. a) Shock, pain and loss of amenities of life; b) Injury itself with or without permanent disability; c) Medical and incidental expenses; d) Loss of earnings till the date of petition, during the pendency of the proceedings and the post award; e) Loss of property; f) Loss of prospects pleasures, desires and ambitions; g) Any other loss due to the accident, and h) Any other item depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 17. The learned Judge was careful enough in recording findings relating to the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The learned Judge after recording the reasons came to the conclusion that the petitioner in O.P. – the respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is entitled to the following amount under different heads: a. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00 b. Medical expenses (past) Rs. 75,000-00 c. Medical expenses (future) Rs. 10,000-00 d. Loss of past earnings Rs. 6,000-00 e. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 20,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 1,61,000-00 18. This Court had carefully gone through the evidence of PW-1 well supported by PW-2 and also PWs.3 and 4 Doctors. This court is thoroughly satisfied that the Tribunal appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and arrived at the correct conclusion. It is needless to say that apart from the evidence of Doctors PWs.3 and 4 the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also is available on record. Ex.A-1 is the attested Xerox copy of First Information Report in Crime No.295/ 2002 of Nellore Rural Police Station, Ex.A-2 is the attested Xerox copy of wound certificate issued by Jayabharat hospital Nellore, Ex.A-3 is attested copy of charged sheet in C.C.No. /2002 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, Ex.A-4 is discharge summary, dated 02-11-2002 issued by Saradhi Ortho Centre, Nellore, Exs.A-5 and A-6 are the discharge summaries, Exs.A-7 and A-8 are the bunch of medical bills, Exs.A-9 and A-10 are the Bunch of prescriptions, Ex.A-11is the certificate issued by Dr. C. Vijaya Saradhi, Orthopedic Surgeon, Nellore, Ex.A-12 is the prescription dated 04-12-2003 issued by Dr.Sannapareddy Krishna Reddy, Bone Joint and Spine Surgeon, Soujanya Orthopedic and Spinal Centre, Nellore, Ex.A-13 is the certificate issued by Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Indukurpet Bit-11, Ex.A-14 is the Xerox copy of licence in the name of the petitioner issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore, Ex.A- 15 is the Xerox copies of certificate of registration relating to tractors and trailers, Ex.A-16 is the certificate dated 16-03-2004 issued by the Personnel Officer, S.L.S. Power Limited, Nellore, Ex.A-17 is the bunch of X-ray films and Ex.A-18 is the case sheet issued by Jayabharat hospital, Nellore. 19. In the light of the voluminous evidence available on record the findings of the Tribunal cannot be found fault and the said findings are hereby confirmed. But, however, instead of granting interest @ 9% p.a., it would be just and reasonable if the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. 20. Hence, the order is modified to the effect that the appellant is liable to pay Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees one lakh, sixty one thousand only) with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of O.P. till the date of realization. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above that is with respect to interest and in all other respect the findings are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 22, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.668 of 2005 April 22, 2010 [1] 1997 (1) ALT PAGE 739 [2] 1997 (1) ALT PAGE 259