IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1525 and 1688 of 2005 M.A.C.M.A. No.1525 of 2005: Between: Thallapally Bhoomaiah .. Appellant AND Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed and another .. Respondents M.A.C.M.A. No.1688 of 2005: Between: APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Thallapally Bhoomaiah and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the award in O.P. No.65 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 31-03-2005. The claimant, aged 30 years, and his friend were travelling by APSRTC bus No.AP 10Z 8532 in the night of 8/9-07-2002 at about 2.30 A.M. The bus driven rashly and negligently at high speed suddenly went up a speed breaker resulting in the claimant receiving an injury to his backbone due to the impact. Crime No.98 of 2002 was registered by the police against the bus driver and he was prosecuted. The facture of L1 vertebra with posterior dislocation into the spinal cord and compression of the spinal cord resulted in permanent disablement in spite of treatment at Government hospital, Karimnagar and with doctors J. Mothilal and P.V.K. Kishore. The claimant had to incur huge expense for the treatment and had to lease out his lands to other persons stopping personal cultivation. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Corporation. The driver contested the claim denying any rash and negligent driving and contended that the claimant, who heavily drank, could not even take a ticket from the conductor and he sustained any injury due to his own negligence. Hence, the driver of the bus desired the claim to be negatived. The Corporation also contended that the claimant, sleeping in the last seat of the bus in a drunken state, fell down from his seat when the bus was negotiating a speed breaker and hence, it claimed that it is not liable to pay the excessive compensation claimed. The Tribunal framed issues about the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation from either respondent and to which extent. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 during the course of enquiry while marking Exs.A.1 to A.11. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award finding the evidence of the injured P.W.1 to be corroborated by the eye witness account of P.W.2 and further supported by the contents of the first information report Ex.A.1 and the charge-sheet Ex.A.2 apart from the other documents. The effect of the evidence was considered by the Tribunal to be proving the rash and negligent driving of the bus and also contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal did not quantify the percentage of contributory negligence of the claimant and assessed the compensation with reference to the evidence of P.W.3, whose certification of permanent disability under Ex.A.9 was stated by him to be not for any judicial purpose. The Tribunal considered that the grievous fracture injury should be compensated by grant of Rs.50,000/-, while another Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses also should be awarded. On the total sum of Rs.85,000/-, the Tribunal granted interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Corporation filed C.M.A. No.1688 of 2005 contending that the evidence of the bus driver as R.W.1 could not have been disbelieved and the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant was not assessed in assessing the compensation payable. The fact that P.W.2, the other co-passenger, did not receive any injuries also should have been appreciated and the disability stated in Ex.A.3 was not stated by P.W.3. The Corporation, therefore, felt that the amount granted towards compensation could not have been granted. The claimant filed C.M.A. No.1525 of 2005 claiming that the compensation should have been awarded in full as claimed by him and the finding of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant could not have been excluded from consideration and hence, full compensation as claimed may be awarded. Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant Corporation and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant are heard. The points that arise for consideration in these two appeals are firstly about the responsibility for the accident and secondly about the quantum of compensation to which the claimant may be entitled. Coming to the manner of the accident, even if the evidence of the injured P.W.1 has to be examined with great care and caution in view of his interestedness, the evidence of the independent witness P.W.2 was not susceptible for rejection on any such suspicion. The earliest version in Ex.A.1 first information report throwing the blame on the bus driver, was corroborated by the independent statutory investigation done by the police leading to the prosecution of the bus driver under Ex.A.2 charge-sheet. The evidence on record does not disclose as to what happened to the criminal prosecution and though the bus driver as R.W.1 tried to reiterate the drunken condition of the claimant to have led to his fall from the last seat, the allegedly drunken state of the claimant was not corroborated by any other circumstances in the evidence on record. The Tribunal, therefore, relying on the mutually corroborating oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, further supported by Exs.A.1 and A.2 than the self-serving and interested statements of R.W.1, cannot be considered to be against the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record and the consequential liability of both the respondents to jointly and severally compensate the claimant justly and adequately for the injuries received in the accident and their consequences cannot be in doubt. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the injury received was described as a post-traumatic wedge compression fracture of L1 vertebra leaving limping and lurching as 50% disability, which is permanent partial according to the evidence of the medical expert as P.W.3. Even if the claim was of Ex.A.9 to have not been issued for any judicial purpose, the fact remains that the impact of the grievous fracture injury is not such as can be totally brushed aside. In the absence of any definite evidence about the adverse impact of the disability caused by the injury on the future earning capacity of the claimant, the Tribunal in its wisdom and experience had decided to grant a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the same apart from Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards treatment. The expenses of treatment and the tortious course of treatment the claimant had taken were probablised by Exs.A.3 and A.5 to A.11 and none of the three amounts can be considered to be excessively compensating the injured/claimant. The grievance of the claimant of being under-compensated and the grievance of the Corporation about the claimant being overcompensated are both exercises in exaggeration and cannot be considered to be in tune with the oral and documentary evidence on record and when the conclusions of the Tribunal are reasonable and just, interference with the same requires very strong grounds, which are absent. The award, therefore, has to be confirmed as it stands. In the result, both the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-09-2011 Svv