IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.702 of 2003 Between: New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati .. Appellant AND Y. Balaramaiah and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.427 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, dated 31-01- 2000. The injured claimant was stated to be going to the administrative building of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams at Tirupati on 18-06-1996 at about 11.45 A.M. and near Anjaneyaswamy temple on K.T. road, the bus AP 03V 606, driven rashly and negligently, in high speed dashed against his cycle resulting in the left wheel of the bus running over the left leg of the claimant. He suffered multiple injuries and was treated at S.V.R.R. Government General Hospital and then at Government Stanely hospital, Madras. His left leg was amputated below the knee and at the age of 52 years, he was earning Rs.10,967-80 ps. per month as Superintendent of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. He suffered a disability of 75% and crime No.56 of 1996 was registered against the bus driver, who was prosecuted before criminal Court. Hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. While the owner of the bus remained ex parte, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimant and put him to strict proof. The negligence of the claimant himself in turning his cycle to take diversion without observing the bus, was claimed to be the cause for the accident and not the negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and during the course of enquiry, it examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.3 charge-sheet and holding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. The Tribunal with reference to Ex.A.2 wound certificate, Ex.A.5 discharge summary and Ex.A.6 permanent disability certificate, concluded that the claimant suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of the left leg below the knee. The Tribunal noted that he was in-patient for three months and was getting a salary of Rs.10,967-80 ps. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of past earnings, Rs.15,000/- towards treatment and other miscellaneous expenses in the absence of any bills and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities of life due to amputation of the leg apart from Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. The Tribunal also considered the claim for loss of earning power and with reference to the precedents on the aspect took the disability at 30% and assessed a loss of Rs.4,34,335/- under that head. On the total of Rs.5,24,335/-, the Tribunal granted interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The insurer is before this Court with this appeal against the said award questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive and the Tribunal not deducting Rs.25,000/- already granted towards the no fault liability. The multiplier applied was also questioned and the insurer desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, while none entered appearance for the owner of the bus/2nd respondent. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident is not challenged by any party and the ownership of the bus with the 2nd respondent herein and its valid and subsisting insurance with the appellant are also not in dispute. The fact that there was amputation of left leg of the claimant below the knee, is also not in dispute and that the claimant suffered a permanent disability is self-evident. What remains to be considered is only the justification for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, but there is no material on record to show that the appellant insurer had applied for and was granted any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in order to enable it to challenge the quantum of compensation by way of an appeal. Apart from the apparent non-maintainability of the appeal on such a ground, what was awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.10,000/- towards past earnings for the period of hospitalization, Rs.15,000/- towards transport, medicines and attendants charges, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.4,34,335/- towards general damages or the loss of future earning capacity. The damages awarded towards the loss of past earnings, treatment and other incidental expenses, loss of amenities of life and pain and suffering were, in fact, conservative and not liberal, while the amputation of the leg being taken as inflicting 75% disability in respect of the limb and 30% disability in respect of whole body is also not unreasonable. The multiplier applied at 11 finds justification from Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] and the salary is a matter of record. Even concerning the no fault liability compensation, the Tribunal was clear in the award that the amount awarded under no fault liability shall be part and parcel of the compensation awarded in the petition. The interest awarded was not shown to be not in tune with the then prevailing market rate of interest and under the circumstances, the quantum of compensation does not appear susceptible to interference even on merits. Accordingly, the appeal should fail and is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-02-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298