IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4211 of 2003 Between: APSRTC rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and another .. Appellants AND K. Chandraiah .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.849 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 31-01-2002. The respondent herein was driving a diesel tanker No.ABT 7444 on 28-04-2000 and at about 4.20 P.M. after crossing Ghatkesar bridge, APSRTC bus No.AP9Z 9855 dashed against the respondent’s vehicle. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the respondent suffered grievous injuries. He was treated as in-patient at Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and had incurred huge expenses towards medicines, extra nourishment, etc., and also suffered loss of earnings. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the corporation represented by two officials. The corporation contested the claim denying the allegations and contending that the claimant himself drove the tanker rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the course of enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by the first information report and the charge-sheet Exs.A.1 and A.2 as probablising the accident occurring due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal found that there was no documentary evidence to prove the expenditure towards medicines and extra nourishment and the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the claimant working under P.W.2 for a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- apart from daily batta of Rs.70/- . As the claimant would have been disabled at least for 1 to 2 months, the Tribunal considered it just to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings and the Tribunal granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- having regard to the nature of the injuries, expenditure, pain, suffering and inconvenience. It directed the compensation to carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and costs. The corporation challenged the award in this appeal contending that the claimant himself should have been held responsible for the accident when Exs.A.1 and A.2 were not duly proved. The grant of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings or lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- under all heads was also incorrect when Exs.A.3 to A.5 and A.8 and A.9 were not duly proved. Hence, the corporation desired the award to be reversed. Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. The points for consideration in this appeal are again the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. The report to the police was given by one Mohd. Basheer who was the cleaner in the tanker driven by the claimant. The earliest version clearly stated about the claimant receiving bleeding injuries on the head and leg. The claimant was stated to have been trapped inside the vehicle and to have been extricated from the same by the persons who gathered. The independent investigation by the statutory investigating agency found the bus driver to be guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code by causing grievous hurt to the claimant herein with his rash and negligent driving of the bus. The charge-sheet clearly stated about the claimant being treated at Gandhi hospital for the injuries. The genuineness and authenticity of the certified copies of the first information report and the charge-sheet marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2 cannot be in doubt in the absence of any vitiating circumstances. P.W.1, the injured/claimant might be interested in his own case, but the corroboration afforded to his claims by Exs.A.1 and A.2 should be taken as probablising his claims about the manner of the accident, and the conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard, therefore, cannot be deviated from. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is true that the Tribunal specified the sum in lump sum, but the same does not appear unjustified or excessive due to the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The grievous hurt suffered by the claimant included fracture of shaft of femur as seen from Ex.A.3 accident register and Ex.A.4 hospital treatment certificate. Ex.A.5 out-patient chit also specifies the fracture and mentions the claimant to have been an in-patient for about six days. He was advised bed rest for six weeks after discharge and the movement of his leg was obviously not normal as seen from Ex.A.5. He was stated to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and Rs.70/- per day as batta as driver on the lorry of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.2 is that they were entering the wages paid to the employees of their vehicles in their accounts. Even otherwise the claimant’s salary is not significantly deviant from the minimum wages payable to such drivers under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time. If the claimant was getting about Rs.5,100/- per month including the salary and batta and if he was disabled from carrying on his avocation for not less than six weeks, grant of loss of earnings for the period of two months at that scale is not improper. The claimant also will be entitled to have compensation for pain and suffering for one grievous injury and four simple injuries as stated in Ex.A.3 accident register. The minimum to which the claimant would have been entitled in respect of such injuries is Rs.9,000/- under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and taking the normally granted sums under Section 166 into account, awarding Rs.25,000/- for the five injuries including one grievous injury towards pain and suffering will be reasonable and just. The claimant will also be entitled to compensation for transport charges, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and articles, attendant charges, expenses for purchase of medicines prescribed by Ex.A.5 and the expenses of treatment after review after six weeks as advised by Ex.A.5. All these damages under all pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads can be safely considered to amount to about Rs.30,000/- and the claimant also filed the medical certificate issued by an Orthopaedician about his being advised to undergo surgery to correct the mal united fracture of the right femur, which costs about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. For future medical treatment, therefore, the claimant will be entitled to at least Rs.10,000/- presuming that the estimate under Ex.A.8 is exaggerated. On the whole, the claimant would have been entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards just and adequate compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences. The rate of interest at 9 per cent per annum is not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest, while grant of costs shall follow the event. Under the circumstances, the impugned award does not appear susceptible to any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-03-2011 Svv