HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.305 of 2005 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: C. Rama Krishna .. Appellant And 1. The Managing Director 2. The Depot Manager .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the order dated 09.11.2004 passed in M.V.O.P.No.230 of 2002 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The claimant filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 26.03.2001, at about 12.30 hours, while he was proceeding on his Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing No.4401 from Saidabad to Himayathnagar side and when he reached Chanchalguda traffic island, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 4370 driven by its driver with high speed and in rash and negligent manner, dashed against Yamaha Motor Cycle, due to which, the petitioner fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his foot, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad for treatment. Because of the accident, the claimant spent huge amount of Rs.40,000/- for his treatment and medicines. Hence, he filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 – APSRTC filed counter affidavit denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the claimant and the injuries sustained by him. It is further stated that the bus bearing No.AEZ 4370 which belongs to Madhina Depot, was not plying on the route as alleged by the petitioner and no accident involving the bus took place on 26.03.2001. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ 4370 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the doctor, who treated him for the injuries sustained by him, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ 4370 and granted an amount of Rs.62,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and took treatment for nine months continuously as out-patient and is permanently disabled, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards disability is quite less. He has further contended that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of earnings of the claimant. The learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, as such, the impugned order, does not warrant any interference by this Court. From a careful analysis of the material placed on record, it is evident that even though the petitioner has not suffered permanent disability, he is not in a position to stand or walk for a long time, for the reason that he suffered chip fracture and also underwent operation, which means, he is partially disabled, and the compensation of Rs.10,000/- granted towards disability, appears to be on the lower side, and hence, this Court is inclined to enhance it to Rs.30,000/-. Further, according to the evidence of PW1, he was working as Home Guard, however after the occurrence of accident, he was terminated from the job due to his absence for a long time. Even, PW2, who performed operation on the appellant, deposed that due to the injury sustained by the appellant, he cannot stand for a long time and it affects his job as Home Guard. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remains unrebutted. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- APSRTC before the Tribunal, the employment of the petitioner as Home Guard is not controverted. Because of the lacerated injury sustained by him across left distal foot to ankle joint dorsal from medial to lateral and extended to heel, avulsion of the skin with vialability, calcano cuboid joint opened with chip fracture, the petitioner is not able to stand for a long time or walk long distances and climb stairs, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings for about nine months. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is partly allowed enhancing an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards disability and granting a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.97,000/- (Rs.62,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.15,000/-). However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby reduced to 7% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 3rd March, 2011 bcj