IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.677 of 2004 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Patagani Yohan & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.677 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award, dated 29.10.2003, in O.P.No.434 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 2. The first respondent was claimed to be working as a Supervisor of a fish tank and studying law at the time of the accident. On 04.02.2001, at about 4.30 a.m., he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle and near Lingayya Tank, in the outskirts of Dwaraka Tirumala, the first respondent, driving the APSRTC bus No.AP 9Z 8080 rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against the motor cycle. The first respondent was claimed to have sustained multiple fractures and to have suffered disability in spite of treatment for which he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 3. While the driver of the bus remained ex parte, the corporation contested the claim contending that the allegations were false and the compensation claimed was excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the responsibility of the bus driver as well as the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. 5. P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.X-1 were marked during the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award holding that the accident occurred due to the responsibility of the first respondent/driver as proved by P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 and A-3- First Information Report and Charge Sheet. The Tribunal refused to act on the claims of R.W.1/the first respondent about the claimant and another themselves falling down in confusion, in the face of the conclusions of the independent statutory Investigating Agency in Ex.A-3-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal referred to the claims of P.W.1 about the injuries and the treatment corroborated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon as P.W.2. Noting Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A-4-O.P. Chit and Ex.A-6-Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, West Godavari at Eluru, the Tribunal also referred to the claim of P.W.2, one of the members of the Medical Board, about the necessity to undergo another surgery for removing the rods. Taking the occupation of the claimant as Supervisor of a fish tank then and as practising lawyer by the time of the award, the Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.2,000/- per month at the relevant time and the disability to be 25%. The loss of earning capacity of the claimant aged 35 years was taken as 20% and applying a multiplier of 14, the Tribunal assessed the loss of income at Rs.67,200/- apart from the medical expenses of Rs.3,245/- under Ex.A-5-Medical Bills and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering and extra nourishment. The total compensation of Rs.72,445/- was awarded with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. 7. The corporation stood aggrieved by the award and contended herein that the driver of the bus was not rash and negligent and that any conclusion could not have been drawn solely on the evidence of the interested P.W.1. In the absence of any evidence to show the monthly earnings of the claimant assessing the same at Rs.2,000/- per month is also incorrect and the compensation awarded is excessive. 8. Sri Mohd. Arif Valli, learned counsel representing Sri K. Satayanarayana Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant corporation and Sri P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant are heard. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are again about the responsibility for the accident and the compensation to which the claimant is entitled. 10. Coming to the manner in which the accident occurred, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 attempted to claim that there was no possibility to drive the bus in high speed on the single road and it was out of their own confusion that the claimant and another fell down from the motor cycle. Though he claimed that he was acquitted by the criminal Court, the copy of the judgment was not before the Tribunal and he admitted being prosecuted by the police in connection with the accident. Ex.A- 3-Charge Sheet showing the result of independent investigation by the statutory Investigating Agency shows that there was corroboration for the claims of the injured P.W.1 from two independent witnesses and even the Conductor of the bus. Even if the person driving the motor cycle were to be considered interested, the other eye witness and the Conductor of the bus cannot be attributed with any such vice. The manner of the accident was reported as claimed by the claimant herein even at the earliest point of time in Ex.A-1-First Information Report and if the claims of R.W.1 are true, he would have placed his version before the police or his department much earlier to his evidence as R.W.1. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal considering the balance of broad human probabilities to be probablising the rash and negligent driving of the bus to be the cause for the accident cannot be faulted. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant was Supervisor of a fish tank and was a student of law then and practising law later. Even non-earning persons are presumed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum and P.W.1 being assessed to be having a probable annual income of Rs.24,000/- cannot be considered high even in the absence of proof of the income at the scale claimed by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 about the injuries suffered and the treatment taken were corroborated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon of the District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, as P.W.2 who stated about P.W.1 suffering dislocation of right Patella, comminuted fracture of right distal femur and a lacerated wound over the anterior surface of the right knee. He was the person who conducted the surgeries and managed the second stabilization of the fracture bone and he was also a member of the medical board which certified the disability in Ex.A-6-Disability Certificate. P.W.2 is an independent witness connected with the treatment only in the discharge of his official responsibilities and there is no reason to suspect his claims. If so, the Tribunal assessing the percentage of functional disability at 20% with reference to 25% disability certified in Ex.A-6-Disability Certificate and assessing the loss of future income, accordingly, cannot be considered excessive. The medical expenses were granted only as they are as per Ex.A-5-Medical Bills, while in fact, the pain and suffering and extra nourishment, etc., were under- compensated by granting only Rs.2,000/-. The compensation awarded, thus, cannot be considered high and the interest awarded is not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing bank rates of interest. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for any interference with the impugned award and the appeal has to fail. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 3rd March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.677 of 2004 Date: 3rd March, 2011 KL