THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:3296 of 2005 BETWEEN: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Manging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. APPELLNAT AND Gundlapalli Danam, S/o. Balaswamy, Attender, Co-operative Society, Kamalapuram, Residing at D.No.6/125, Mariyapuram, Cuddapah. RESPONDENT Counsel for Claimant: Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy Counsel for Respondent: Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 5.07.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah in M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2003. 2. The claimant filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in the accident that occurred on 3.11.2002 at about 2.30 p.m. while he was returning home on his TVS.50 moped from the market situated at Kamalapuram. When the claimant was crossing Mydukur – Cuddapah highway near second Gandhi Statute, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 6706 came from Mydukur side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the TVS.50 moped, as a result, he fell down and received fracture to his sixth rib on right side and grievous injuries to his lower chest, left upper arm, left inguinal region and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government hospital, Cuddapah, where he took treatment at the first instance and later he was treated in a private hospital at Cuddapah. Due to the said accident he lost his earned leave and sustained heavy loss of leave salary. 3. The respondent-corporation filed counter admitting the accident. But it denied the involvement of RTC bus contending that on the date of incident the claimant came on TVS.50 moped from the market side and while entering into trunk road near the turning, he lost his control over the moped and fell on the road along with moped. When driver of the bus observed the same at a distance of 25 yards, he stopped the bus and went away normally. But a case was foisted by the claimant for getting compensation from the respondent. It also denied the income and the injuries received by the claimant, and prays to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 3.11.2002 at 2.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 6706 by its driver belonging to respondent ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as PW.1 and he also examined Dr. J. Nagesh as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.B.1. 5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal held on Issue No.1 that as can be seen from Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet, it is clear that when the claimant was going on TVS moped and while crossing at second Gandhi statue in Cuddapah town, the RTC bus came on right side of the TVS.50 moped and dashed on its rear side, due to which the vehicle and the claimant fell down and received injuries. Therefore, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, and accordingly answered the issue in favour of the claimant. On Issue No.2 the Tribunal observed that though the claimant had not placed any medical bills and prescriptions to show the amount spent for medicines and extra nourishment, but he received one fracture injury at 6th rib on right side and other simple injuries, and he would have spent some amount for medicines and extra nourishment for setting right the fracture injury and heal up of all injuries, and therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. It also awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income and loss of leave credits. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards just and reasonable compensation with interest at 9% p.a. Questioning the same, APSRTC filed the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation and learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 7. learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.B.1-judgment in criminal case. The claimant lost control over the TVS.50 moped and fell down, and on seeing the same the RTC bus driver stopped the bus for some time and went away normally, and therefore, there was no rash and negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver, and hence the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the claimant also. His second contention is that the Tribunal erred in granting entire compensation claimed by the claimant under the head of “Medicines and extra nourishment” without any proof of documentary evidence. His third contention is that the Tribunal ought not to have calculated the salary of the claimant at Rs.5000/- p.m., since he showed his salary receipt for Rs.4000/- p.m. in the claim petition as well as in his evidence, and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. On the report given about the accident, the police registered a case, investigated into the same, and filed the charge sheet. On a perusal of Ex.A.3-charge sheet it is evident that while the claimant was crossing the road at second Gandhi Statue on his TVS.50 moped in Cuddpah town, the offending vehicle came on right side of the moped and dashed on its rear side, as a result, the moped and the claimant fell down and received injuries. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the claimant lost control over the moped and fell down and on seeing the incident the driver of the bus stopped the bus at some distance and went away, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. 10. Coming to the second contention of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in granting entire compensation claimed by the claimant under the head of “Medicines and extra nourishment” without any proof of documentary evidence, as per Ex.A.2-wound certificate the claimant received the following injuries. 1. Adhesive plaster applied to lower chest. 2. Abrasion 4 x2 cm on back of left upper fore arm brownish in colour. 3. Pain in left inguinal region. X ray taken on chest PA view found fracture of sixth rib on right side. The doctor opined that injury No.1 is grievous and other injuries are simple in nature. No doubt the respondent had not placed any medical bills and prescriptions, but since he sustained one fracture injury at 6th rib on right side as per the X ray taken on chest PA, he might have spent some amount for medicines and extra nourishment for setting right fracture injury and heal up of all injuries. Hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded the entire amount claimed by the claimant towards medicines and extra nourishment and hence the same need not be interfered with. 11. Sofaras as the third contention of the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have calculated the salary of the claimant at Rs.5000/- p.m., since he showed his salary receipt for Rs.4000/- p.m. in the claim petition as well as in his evidence, is concerned, the appellant, during the course of evidence, did not dispute the employment of the claimant and the salary received by him under Ex.A.4-salary certificate.. Hence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is working as an attender in Cooperative Society at Kamalapuram and earning more than Rs.5000/- salary per month. If the salary of the claimant is taken at Rs.5000 p.m., it would come to Rs.60,000/- per year and by taking 15% disability, his annual income comes to (Rs.60000 x 15%) Rs.9,000/- p.a. Since the claimant was aged about 47 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the correct multiplier would be ‘13’. If multiplier ‘13’ is applied, the claimant is entitled to get more than what was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence I deem it appropriate to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129