IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3570 of 2008 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its M.D., Hyderabad & another … Appellants And: M. Durgaiah … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3570 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.03.2006 in OP No.1266 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum Additional Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by the respondent herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein ﬁled claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2004. According to the claimant, on that day, while he was standing at Shankarpally bus stand, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 5442 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against him and he fell down and front tyre of the bus ran over his right leg, resulting in crush injury, besides other injuries and that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad where his right leg was amputated below the knee. A case in Cr.No.17 of 2004 was registered by Shankarpally PS against the driver of the bus. It is further stated that the claimant was aged 32 years, and was working as labourer and earning Rs.3000/- per month and on account of the accident, he became permanently disabled. 4. The appellant ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry before the Tribunal, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the APSRTC, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. The said ﬁnding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant himself was negligent and by his own negligence, he also contributed to the accident. The evidence on record however goes to show that the claimant was standing at the bus stop and the bus came and dashed against him. The plea of the appellant that the claimant was also negligent and he too contributed for the accident remains unsubstantiated. 7. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC ﬁled the present appeal mainly disputing quantum of compensation. The evidence on record shows that the accident has resulted in crush injury to the claimant and his right leg was amputated below the knee. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient from 18.02.2004 to 21.02.2004. Ex.A.5 is the disability certiﬁcate where- under permanent disability is assessed at 50%. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was aged 32 years and was going to the coolie work. 8. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant, who was labourer, only at Rs.2000/- per month, which is considered reasonable. Applying the multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal has estimated the loss of earning capacity on account of 50% disability at Rs.2,04,000/-. The Tribunal however awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suﬀering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.24,000/- towards loss of past earnings as the claimant could not have attended to any work. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, thus, making up a total of Rs.3,18,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was young man, aged 32 years and was labourer and his right leg was amputated up to the knee due to the crush injury suﬀered in the accident, it is considered that the amount of Rs.3,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as a whole is just and reasonable compensation and the same does not warrant any interference. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.11.2011 bss