IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.1325 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad …. Appellant AND Konduru Reddy Venkata Raju S/o. Krishnama Raju …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.1325 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Questioning the liability for compensation and quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal against order dated 16-02-2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No.405 of 2005 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. It is a case of collision between RTC bus being driven by RW-1 and Motorcycle being driven by PW-1. According to PW-1, RTC bus was at fault and hit his motorcycle because of rash and negligent driving. On the other hand, RW-1 says that there was no collision between motorcycle and the bus and that after front side of the bus passing motorcycle, the motorcycle hit right side of the bus. Thus, there is no dispute about both the vehicles coming into contact with each other resulting in PW-1 sustaining injuries in this accident. Not only police record relating to the accident, but also evidence of PW-1 who is the injured show that RW-1 was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. After investigation, the police also filed Ex.A-3 charge sheet against the bus driver namely RW-1 as the person responsible for this accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Having regard to the above evidence on record, the lower Tribunal rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by RW-1. 3. In this accident, PW-1 sustained three injuries as per Ex.A-2 wound certificate, out of which two injuries are grievous in nature as they are fracture injures and one injury is simple in nature. Though the petitioner examined PW-2, a consultant orthopaedician, with regard to alleged disability due to fracture injuries, the lower Tribunal rightly did not place any reliance on his evidence. The claimant also did not file any cross appeal questioning the said finding of the lower Tribunal regarding disability. 4. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- each for two grievous injuries and Rs.5,000/- for one simple injury as basic compensation. Thereafter, the lower Tribunal awarded Rs.52,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards special diet as extra nourishment, Rs.3,500/- towards transport charges. With regard to above three amounts, there cannot be any dispute. There are medical bills supporting medical expenses and Ambulance bill supporting transport charges. Apart from the said amounts, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. Rs.15,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of confinement to bed and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. With regard to period of confinement in bed, the petitioner did not lead any evidence. He was in Apollo Hospital for only six days from 23-09-2004 to 28-09-2004. Though, he claimed to be working as Operator in Reliance Marketing Private Limited, he did not produce any material before the lower Tribunal to show for how many days he absented himself from attending to duties after accident. In the absence of any such material, the lower Tribunal should not have granted total sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of confinement. This Court is of the opinion that in the absence of proof of period of confinement, the said period can be reasonably assessed at two months having regard to fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner. Accordingly, compensation for loss of earnings during the period of confinement is reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and attendant charges are reduced from Rs.5,000/- to 2,000/-. 5. Apart from granting basic compensation for grievous and simple injuries, the lower Tribunal again granted Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. There is no basis for granting of Rs.25,000/- each for two grievous injuries and Rs.5,000/- for one simple injury. This Court is of the opinion that granting of Rs.15,000/- each for two grievous injuries and Rs.2,000/- for one simple injury will serve the purpose apart from granting of Rs.5,000/- each for two grievous injuries and Rs.1,000/- for one simple injury towards pain and suffering as per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.1,09,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by the lower Tribunal from Rs.1,48,000/- to Rs.1,09,000/-. No costs. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 17, 2010. KTL