IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4694 of 2003 Between: Bonala Satyanarayana Reddy @ Satyanarayana .. Appellant AND Badri Laxmaiah and another .. Respondents ORDER: The appeal is directed against the award dated 24-09-2003 in O.P.No.206 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The claimant-appellant was coming on motorcycle No.AP- 15-D-9839 on 11-07-1999 at about 10-45 P.M. APSRTC bus No.AP-9-Z-6457, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against his motorcycle near Perumandla gutta in the outskirts of Kamanpur village. The claimant received a compound fracture of both the bones of right leg with exposing of muscles, fracture of right shaft femur, fracture of both the bones of right fore arm, compound fracture of right meta carpals, injury brachial plexus, abrasion on right cheek and deep laceration on chin. The claimant took treatment but still became a permanently disabled person and Karimnagar Rural Police registered Cr.No.115 of 1999 about the accident. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Corporation, the owner of the bus. He claimed Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards future attendant charges. He also claimed interest at 24%p.a. on the compensation. The driver and the Corporation contested the claim contending that the claimant himself was driving the motorcycle in a jig jag manner on the middle of the road resulting in his hitting the bus, which was taken to the extreme left side of the road and stopped. The negligence of the claimant himself resulted in the accident due to which the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during enquiry, it examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet as probablising that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal in proceeding to assess the compensation noted the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.12 and observed that apart from the injuries specified, the claimant also suffered the consequence of amputation of his right leg above the knee. The Tribunal also noted that the right hand also lost its sensation from the proximal fore arm onwards. The medical evidence was noted to be specifying that no further improvement can be anticipated even in the right upper limb. The Tribunal considered it reasonable to award Rs.17,500/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.4,000/- towards transport, Rs.75,000/- towards consequences of permanent disability on the prospects in career and future earning capacity and Rs.7,500/- towards attendants charges. On the total compensation of Rs.1,28,236/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant challenged the said award herein contending that the continuing permanent disablement was not adequately compensated and the medical expenses could not have been restricted to Rs.50,000/- only. Towards fracture and other injuries, a sum of Rs.50,000/- should have been granted instead of Rs.17,500/- and when the permanent disability is cent percent denying the claimant of any chances of promotion, full compensation as prayed for should have been granted, more so, when his future earning capacity is effected. Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. G. Nivedhitha, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation are heard and the 1st respondent remained unrepresented before this Court. The driver of the bus or the Corporation did not challenge the conclusions of the Tribunal about the accident being due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent to the claim. The consequential joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured- claimant in respect of the injuries and their consequences, therefore, cannot be in doubt. It is only the quantum of such compensation that is the subject of adjudication in the present appeal. The major consequences of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident are amputation of right leg above the knee and absence of sensation of the right hand from fore arm onwards. In effect, the claimant had lost his right leg and his right hand was paralyzed. The suffering of the injuries in the accident, their treatment and the consequences were spoken to by PW.3, the Orthopaedic Surgeon of NIMS Hospital and PW.4, the professor of Plastic Surgery of NIMS Hospital and their evidence disclosed no scope for any further improvement even in the right upper limb. Though admittedly the claimant is continuing as a police constable in the Police Department in the Government of Andhra Pradesh as earlier, the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was deprived of future chances of promotion and had continued in the same post because of the very nature of his job, is not open to be doubted in any manner and the Tribunal deeming that he would get promotions in future, if he is otherwise eligible, may not be in tune with the requirements of the nature of service to which the injured claimant belongs. Irrespective of his continuance in the job or his getting any promotion further, if he is otherwise eligible for the same, the disability imposed by the accident has to be adequately compensated. The decision reported in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupalli v. Ramisetty Koteswara Rao[1] by a Division Bench of this Court offers positive guidance in this regard and therein also a person working as a Draftsman and continuing in service as such earning the same salary suffered a permanent disability of 75% due to the severance of his left hand in the accident. The Division Bench had noted that the injured- claimant was still working in the same capacity earning the same salary as he was earning before the accident although he incurred 75% disability which has no nexus to his earning capacity, but still considered that there would be 50% loss of earning capacity due to the loss of hand. Instead of 75% of permanent disability as assessed by the medical evidence, Their Lordships of the Division Bench, therefore, assessed the loss of future earnings on the basis of 50% loss of earning capacity in that case. There is no need to replicate any further precedents on this aspect in view of the binding decision. But, it may be noted that superior courts are of the consistent view that notwithstanding the continuance of the injured claimant in his job earning the same salary as earned prior to the accident, the impact of the accident on the claimant has to be adequately compensated with reference to the loss of future earning power. While in the case before the Division Bench, the loss of a single upper limb was considered to be imposing 75% permanent disability in medical terms and 50% loss of earning capacity in legal terms, in the present case, the injured claimant had his right hand paralyzed and right leg amputated probably justifying the assessment of loss of earning capacity for him even at a higher level than that adopted by the Division bench, and therefore, taking the loss of earning capacity at a minimum 50% of the capacity of the claimant to earn cannot be considered high or excessive. The claimant was shown to be earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,434/- by June, 1999 as per the salary certificate- Ex.A.8 and none of the deductions are such as would result in reduction of the earning capacity with reference to the gross salary. If the monthly earnings were taken thus at Rs.4,400/- and 50% of the same were to be considered as representing the loss of earning capacity, the loss of earning capacity per annum would be Rs.26,400/-. For the age of the injured-claimant below 30 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2] and if so, the total loss of future earning capacity to be compensated would come to about Rs.4,48,000/-. The amounts granted towards pain and suffering at Rs.17,500/-, extra nourishment at Rs.6,500/-, transport at Rs.4,000/- and attendant charges at Rs.7,500/- probably need not require any upward revision in the light of the loss of future earning power being calculated liberally notwithstanding any continuance of the claimant in the job earning the same salary taking into account the permanent disability imposed, loss of amenities for the rest of his life and the probable loss of prospects in his career. However, when it comes to the reimbursement of medical expenses, the Tribunal found it difficult to accept all the medical bills for a total of Rs.1,28,418/-. It did not assign any reason as to why the medical bills produced under Exs.A.9 to A.11 are susceptible to any doubt. If after medical reimbursement granted by the Department at Rs.50,000/-, still the claimant had incurred further medical expenses of Rs.78,418/-, there was no reason as to why such sum was disallowed to the claimant. Compensation under all these heads may approximately come to an amount of Rs.1,13,000/-. The total compensation to which the injured- claimant will be entitled thus may come to Rs.5,61,000/- and if the compensation to be awarded is to be rounded off to Rs.5,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.6,50,000/- that will be awarding just and adequate compensation, also taking into account that the Corporation, which is a holder of public funds, will be liable to pay interest on the entire compensation including the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. Insofar as the interest is concerned, on the original compensation, the interest was awarded at 9% p.a., but in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid, such interest can be restricted to 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. In the result, the award dated 24-09-2003 in O.P.No.206 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest on Rs.1,28,236/- at 9% p.a. and on the balance at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against both the respondents jointly and severally and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2011 Ksn [1] 1998 (2) ALT 688 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298