THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:369 of 2006 BETWEEN: Entesham Hussain S/o. Ashraff Hussain, R/o. Flat No.95, Triveni Apartments, Flat No.501, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND 1. The Divisional Controller, N. E. Karnataka State Road Transport, Gulbargah (K.S) and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the appellant/claim petitioner filed this appeal against the order dated 18.10.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.313 of 2003 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of communal offence cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the injuries received by him in the accident that took place on 27.10.2002 at about 10.15 p.m. When the petitioner was waiting at Zaheerabad bus-stand to go to Hyderabad about 10.15 p.m., the bus bearing No.K A 32F/769 belonging to the respondents-corporation, came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed him, as a result, he fell down and sustained fractures to his legs, and blunt injuries all over the body and face. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, Zaheerabad and later he was admitted in NIMS hospital Hyderabad. The police, Zaheerabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2002 against the driver of the bus and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time of accident he was studying B.A MS (Medicine II year) and by taking tuitions he was earning an amount of Rs.3000/- per month. 3. The respondents-corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition regarding the age, income and the injuries received by the claim petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place on 27.10.2002 at 10.15 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing No.K A 32 F 769 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. 5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Tribunal on Issue No.1 observed that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 established that the offending bus dashed the petitioner when he was waiting near the gate of Zaheerabad bus-stand for a bus to go to Hyderabad. It also observed that there is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the respondents to establish that the petitioner tried to board the bus in motion before it stopped at the bus-stand. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, and accordingly, answered the issue in favour of the petitioner. On Issue No.2 the Tribunal observed that taking into consideration that the petitioner was studying B.A.MS (Medicine II year), his age would be about 20 years as on the date of accident. Though the petitioner as PW.1 stated that he was earning Rs.3000/- p.m. by conducting tuitions, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal treated the petitioner as a student and non-earning member, and adopted the notional income of Rs.15,000/- for a non- earning member as per Schedule II of the Act, for the purpose of computing compensation for partial permanent disability. Since the petitioner did not examine the doctor, who treated him either at Zheerabad hospital, NIMS hospital or at Tilaknagar Hospital to prove the contents of Exs.A.3 to A.6, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Seeking further enhancement, the present appeal has been preferred by the claim petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claim petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective and the compensation awarded is unjust and unreasonable. He also contended that though the appellant suffered grievous injuries the Tribunal erred in treating the same as simple injuries. The Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.A.10-medical bills, which clearly go to show that the appellant had spent an amount of Rs.54,319/-. He further contended that though the appellant sustained grievous multiple injuries in the said accident and subjected to severe pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.12,500/- towards pain and suffering. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in treating the appellant as non-earning member and taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount towards extra nourishment. Hence he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. It is also true that the appellant suffered fracture of medical malicious right leg (Ankle), crush injury to right thigh, injury to eye, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. As per the medical record, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Zaheerabad hospital and later admitted in NIMS hospital. He was treated as inpatient in NIMS from for 25 days and he was operated on 18.11.2002. After discharge also he continued to take treatment as out patient in NIMS and Tilaknagar Hospital, Hyderabad. Since the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and he suffered 35% permanent partial disability and the pain and suffering will continue through out his life, the notional income of a non-earning member as per Schedule II of the Act, at Rs.15,000/- p.a., would be appropriate for computing the compensation. Accordingly the annual income of the appellant would come to (Rs.15000 x 35%) Rs.5250/-, which is rounded off to Rs.5300/-. The appropriate multiplier for a student of 20 years old, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1], would be ‘18’. Thus the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.95,400/- (Rs.5300 x 18), towards loss of future earnings, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000 towards medical bills and Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,85,400/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 15th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129