HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.521 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation-respondent in O.P.No. 125 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ongole assailing the common orders in O.P.Nos.125 of 1998, 123 of 1998 and 135 of 1998, dated 30.4.2002 whereby and whereunder the petition of the claimant was allowed in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.94,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on 6.11.1997, the petitioner along with her husband and daughter after making some purchases at Ongole, came by bus and got down at Priyadarshini Spinning Mill and were waiting to cross the road and at that time APSRTC bus bearing No.AP. 9 Z- 2905 came from Vijayawada side and proceedings towards Kanigiri at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the petitioner, her husband and daughter, a s a result thereof, they were thrown out on the road. They all sustained multiple injuries. They were treated at Government Headquarters hospital at Ongole. Maddipadu P.S. registered a case in crime No.81/97 under Section 338 IPC against the bus driver. 4. The respondent-corporation filed written statement denying the claim petition averments including rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver, and attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner in crossing the road; that the accident had occurred due to negligent behaviour of the petitioner and that the petitioner did not suffer or sustain any loss due to the accident and that she is hale and healthy and as such she is not entitled to any compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-2905? ii Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent? iii. To what relief? 6. The petitioner got herself examined as PW.2 besides examining her husband as PW.1 and medical witness who treated her at the time of the accident was examined as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.X.1 to X.3. The driver of the RTC bus was examined as RW.1 on behalf of the respondent-corporation. However, no documents were marked on its behalf. 7. After assessing and appreciating the material brought on record by either side, including the evidence, the lower Tribunal gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to fault on the part of the RTC bus driver and as such, it had fastened vicarious liability on the respondent-corporation by awarding a total compensation of Rs.94,000/- as stated supra in Para No.1. 8. It is the case of the respondent-corporation that though it is to be found in the evidence of PW.2 that the petitioner-claimant was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing milk business and that she was owning she-buffalos, however no document is filed in support thereof, as such, the Tribunal erred in fixing loss of monthly income at Rs.300/- and thereby arriving at Rs.3,600/- as annual loss of earnings; that as the petitioner was 27 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier 15 and by doing so, it has fixed total loss of earning capacity of the petitioner at Rs.54,000/-towards future loss of earnings. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-corporation that the interest awarded at 9% is on the higher side and the same is liable to be scaled down as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. 9. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner- claimant that the lower Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has awarded a total compensation of Rs.94,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum and the same is just and reasonable and that it does not warrant any interference from this court. 10. PW.3-Doctor, who treated the petitioner, deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital with fracture of left femur and they have operated upon her and inserted steel rods and she had a head injury also. For that she was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for expert treatment. After scanning at Government General Hospital, Guntur, she was sent back to their hospital and she was readmitted in their hospital on 18.11.1997 and they conducted operation on 27.11.1997 for insertion of steel rods for the fractured left leg. The petitioner required another operation for removal of the rods and there was sharpening of left thigh by half inch. Because of nail pressing on the hip joint, she is unable to walk without a stick. Ultimately, PW.3 assessed the permanent partial disability at 15%. Accordingly to PW.2, she was doing milk business prior to the accident and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month, and now she could not able to do the said business due to the accident. Having regard to the evidence and factual aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- and by taking into consideration 15% disability, fixed the loss of future earnings at Rs.300/-per month which annually came to Rs.3,600/-. Since the petitioner was 27 years old at the time of the accident, proper multiplier ‘15’ was applied and arrived at Rs.54,000/- towards her future loss of earnings. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities since the petitioner suffered a fracture of her left femur and steel rods were inserted and she is unable to walk without the support of a stick. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering since the petitioner was under treatment for a considerable period and Rs.15,000/- towards medical and other expenses since she took treatment in two different hospitals and she might have spent considerable amount. 11. In the circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, and as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court. However, the interest as awarded by the Tribunal is scaled down to 7.5% per annum in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in this regard. 12. In the result, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs. ​ ​ _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 18 -11-2010 Stp [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121