THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. Nos.2974 of 2007 & 2886 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident O.P. and the parties also being common, these two appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. C.M.A. No. 2974 of 2007 is filed by the A.P.S.R.TC. challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in OP NO. 1719 of 2004, dated 16.8.2007; whereas, C.M.A. No. 2886 of 2008 is filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the Court below in the said O.P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.2.2004 while the claimant was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 25 C 8274 as pillion rider towards Kamareddy and when they reached the outskirts of Ghanapur, he fell down from the motor cycle when a wild animal suddenly came cross the road and hit the motor cycle. In the meantime, an A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 4279 came from behind with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant sustained fracture to both the bones of his right and left legs besides sustaining injuries to chest, back and other injuries on the body. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy. He further stated that he sustained disability. Hence, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- . It is stated that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was 24 years old and was earning about Rs.5000/- per month. 3. Before the Court below, the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C. resisted the claim of the appellant by filing a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that offending vehicle did not involve in the accident. It also denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of its bus. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation amount. It also stated that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. On behalf of the respondent-claimant, the respondent got himself examined as PW.1 besides examining three other witnesses and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-15. Ex.C1 was also marked. On behalf of the A.P.S.R.T.C., the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. However, no documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. Ex.C1 was marked. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the driver of RTC bus AP 10 Z 4279 drove the vehicle rashly negligently and dashed against the petitioner, when the motor cycle AP 25 C 8274 on which the petitioner was pillion rider, hit a wild animal at 7.30 p.m. on 14.2.2004 near Ghanapur Village limits and caused the serious injuries to petitioner ? 2. Whether the compensation claimed by him is excessive and whether the petitioner is entitled to any such compensation ? 3. To what relief ? 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,46,082/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the A.P.S.R.T.C. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Court below was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. He further contended that there is no negligence on the part of its driver and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligence on the part of driver of the Hero Honda and hence it is not liable to pay any compensation amount. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Court below is highly excessive. Hence, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 9. In order to prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligence on account of the driver of the RTC bus, the respondent-claimant filed Exs. A1 and A2, certified copies of F.I.R. and charge sheet, in the absence of any contra evidence to disprove Exs.A1 and A2, the finding recorded by the court below that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus needs no interference. 10. The claimant in order to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident in question, has examined the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the claimant sustained fractures and he has suffered extensive loss of shaft tissues of the right thigh and upper leg, thigh muscles and was subjected to surgery by insertion of implants into the thigh muscles and the fractures were non-united and they are grievous in nature. In order to prove that he sustained disability by virtue of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, the respondent- claimant examined P.W.3, who is a member of the District Medical Board to show that he sustained disability to an extent of 50%. He also issued Ex.A12 disability certificate to prove the same. When Ex.A12 has been issued by a competent doctor of a Government Hospital assessing the disability sustained by the claimant as 50%, in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the appellant- Corporation, the Court below was not justified in taking the same at 30%. 11. In so far as the income of the respondent is concerned, in the instant case, the respondent stated that he was working in M/s. Saritha Ladies Emporium and getting an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income of the respondent at Rs.3000/- per month and assessed the loss of earnings. However, I think it appropriate to take the income of the respondent notionally at Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- annually. 12. In view of the fact that the respondent sustained disability to an extent of 50% by virtue of the injuries sustained by him, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.24,000/-. In so far as multiplier is concerned, since the appellant was aged about 24 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the appellant is 18 and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs. 24000 x 18) instead of Rs. 1,83,600/- as awarded by the Court below. In addition to this, the respondent is also entitled to Rs. 46,482/- towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the Court below. Further the respondent is also entitled to Rs. 12,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment as awarded by the Court below. However, in so far as the amount of Rs. 18,000/- awarded towards incidental expenses is concerned, the same is disallowed. Therefore, in all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 5,51,482/- towards compensation instead of Rs. 3,46,082/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, C.M.A. No.2974 of 2007 filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 2886 of 2008 filed by the respondent-claimant is allowed in part and the respondent-claimant is granted an amount of Rs.5,51,482/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 31st March, 2011 pnb