IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2479 of 2001 Between: The APSRTC & another .. Appellants AND Dantuluri Krishnam Raju & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2479 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.688 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 11.07.2001. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the first respondent herein was going in his Maruthi car No.AP 5K 700 on 09.12.1997 and near Zoo Park at Visakhapatnam, APSRTC bus No.AP 9Z 9806, driven rashly and negligently, dashed the car from the opposite direction. The car was badly damaged and both the legs of the first respondent herein were broken to pieces and fractured. The first respondent herein was treated first at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and then at Punarvasu Hopsital, Visakhapatnam and then at Vijaya Hospital, Madras, where he took treatment for two months. The first respondent herein was unconscious for 20 days and due to the permanent disability incurred due to the injuries, he was unable to walk properly or supervise his petrol bunk or agricultural lands as he was doing earlier. He claimed to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the petrol bunk itself and to have incurred Rs.4,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation. The second respondent herein was the driver of the bus who was prosecuted in Crime No.166 of 1997 under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the appellants and the driver were sued for a compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-. 3. The claim petition against the driver/the second respondent herein was dismissed before the Tribunal, while the corporation represented by respondents 2 and 3 contested the claim denying all the allegations of the claimant and contending that it was the claimant who drove the car rashly and negligently and lost control over his car which went on to the heap of debris and then dashed the bus on the right side head light even when the bus was stopped on the left side of the road margin. It was the driver and passengers of the bus that took the claimant to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Hence, the corporation desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 8 during the course of the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the claim of the first respondent herein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent herein. The Tribunal discussed in detail the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 in this regard and found that the First Information Report disclosed the rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent herein, while the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report reveals the bus to be having no mechanical defects. The claim of R.W.1 that the criminal case against him ended in acquittal was not considered, as in a criminal case the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt, while in a civil case only a prima facie case is considered. The Tribunal also considered R.W.1 to be interested in himself and the corporation in denying the claim and when the Statutory Investigating Agency filed the charge sheet against the bus driver after a thorough investigation, the Tribunal was unable to accept the claims of R.W.1. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the claims of P.W.1 about the tortious treatment he had undergone between 1997 and 2001 undergoing surgeries 12 times spending Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A-6-Medical Bills to a tune of Rs.6.51 lakhs, Ex.A-7-bills for transportation for Rs.39.29 thousands, etc., and the claimant suffering four fractures as per Ex.A-3-Wound Certificate was also noted. The Tribunal examined Ex.A-6-Bills in detail, but did not ex facie accept them, took adverse note of non-examination of the person who issued the bills and considered it just and reasonable to award only Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment. It also granted Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering and only Rs.6,000/- towards transportation charges, refusing to grant any expenses of travel by flights. The Tribunal further noted that there is a 60% permanent disability due to restriction in the movement of the left knee joint and deformation of the right wrist and the disability in the left wrist. The Tribunal referred to the claims of the claimant about his income from petrol bunk and agriculture and opined that for running the petrol bunk or continuing the agriculture, the physical involvement of the claimant is not required and his earning capacity as such was unaffected. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- under various heads and granted the same with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs, while giving directions about the disbursement of the compensation. 7. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its two officials filed the present appeal contending that the evidence of R.W.1 could not have been disbelieved and at least contributory negligence on the part of the car driver could have been presumed. Grant of various amounts also was questioned and the impugned award is requested to be reversed. 8. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent herein are heard, while the second respondent herein is stated to be not a necessary party to this appeal. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the responsibility for the accident could have been solely placed on the second respondent herein and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is susceptible to any further reduction? 10. In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal about R.W.1 being solely responsible for the accident is concerned, the same is based on the contents of the earliest version immediately after the accident in the First Information Report and also the condition of the bus which would not have been involved in any accident in the absence of any mechanical defects, but for some defect in driving in the light of the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report. The fact that the independent statutory Investigating Agency found the bus driver to be rash and negligent in driving, leading to the accident and his prosecution weighed with the Tribunal naturally and when the claims of P.W.1 and R.W.1 are equally tainted with interestedness, the Tribunal relying on the independent conclusions of the police cannot be considered unreasonable. The analysis of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 by the Tribunal in support of such a conclusion does not appear to call for any interference. 11. While the appellants should, therefore, be responsible to pay just and adequate compensation for the consequences of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is apparently highly conservative in contrast with the huge expenditure which the claimant had incurred for his treatment as probablised by the medical bills produced by him and the bills for transport placed on record. 12. Though none connected with the bills issued by the concerned hospitals was examined, the genuineness of the bills was not doubted by the Tribunal and the medical and transport expenses themselves were almost to a tune of Rs.7,00,000/- as per Exs.A-6 and A-7. Still, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,06,000/- under these heads. The prolonged treatment which the claimant had undergone between 1997 and 2001, as seen from the documents would show the grant of Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment also to be on the lower side and these heads apart, the Tribunal granted only Rs.75,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss of future amenities. The Tribunal accepted the documentary proof about the fractures suffered by the claimant and it did not doubt the series of surgeries undergone by the claimant at the specialized hospitals. While it is true that excessive or lavish expenditure by a wealthy man in this regard may not be a safe guide for arriving at the quantum of reasonable compensation, grant of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering for 60% disability in total with 20% of disability of the left knee, 30% disability of the right femur and 10% of disability of the left wrist which was accepted by the Tribunal and calculating the loss of future amenities at Rs.75,000/- cannot be termed as unreasonable. Under the circumstances, the grant of compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- or interest or proportionate costs granted thereon cannot be reduced further. 13. Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent herein represented that his instructions from the first respondent herein are about an appeal having been filed by the first respondent herein against the grant of inadequate compensation by the impugned award. Unfortunately, due to the demise of the learned counsel who filed the appeal, its details could not have been ascertained. Therefore, it will be in the interests of justice to clarify that the adjudication of this appeal by the corporation is only about the justification for the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while the question of entitlement of the first respondent herein to any enhancement of compensation is left open to be considered on its own merits. 14. Subject to the above observation, the appeal should, therefore, fail and, accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2479 of 2001 Date: 25th January, 2011 KL