IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1343 of 2004 Between: APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, Musheerabad. .. Appellant AND Pokkula Kumara Swamy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 15-12-2003 in O.P.No.183 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The claimant working as Deputy Superintendent with the appellant at Vemulavada Depot was returning from Shirdi in Tata Estate Car No.MP-15-A-0379 on 19-01-1999 and at Tadikal bus stage, APSRTC Bus No.AP-10-Z-2051, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against the car. The claimant had fracture of shaft of femur of both legs and became permanently disabled in spite of treatment. The Police registered Cr.No.4 of 1999 and hence, the claim for Rs.1,00,000/- against the driver and the owner of the bus. While the driver remained ex parte, the Corporation put the claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and claimed that in spite of the bus being slowed down on the road under repair and being stationed on the left side of the road, the car itself hit the bus, and hence, the Corporation is not liable. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled and during enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. 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.3-final report to conclude the rash and negligent driving of the bus to have led to the accident. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal noted that there was no reason to disbelieve the claims of PW.1 corroborated by Exs.A.1 to A.15. The Tribunal noting the claimant to have suffered fractures of femur of both the legs and two surgeries during treatment, considered it reasonable to award Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.7,500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards transport as against Ex.A.11-Bills disclosing Rs.8,932/- as expenses, Rs.2,931/- towards medical expenses proved by medical bills and Rs.34,955/- towards loss of salary for five months based on Ex.A.14 salary certificate. That apart, the functional permanent disability of 5% spoken to by PW.2, the Orthopaedic Surgeon, was taken as the basis for granting another Rs.10,000/- and on the total compensation of Rs.75,386/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The Corporation was aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and questioned the grant of Rs.5,000/- towards travel expenses, the fixation of responsibility on the bus driver for the accident, upholding the claim even without examining the other inmates of Tata Estate car and grant of Rs.10,000/- towards functional disability though there was no loss of income. The Contributory negligence on the part of Tata Estate car driver was stated to have been ignored, and hence, the Corporation desired the award to be reversed. Smt. G. Nivedhitha, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigrari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant are heard and the 2nd respondent-driver did not enter appearance before this Court also. Though a feeble attempt was made in the grounds of appeal to challenge the proof of the manner of accident, the fact remains that respondents did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal to contradict PW.1 or his documents. The earliest recorded version of the incident was in Ex.A.1-First Information Report. It found acceptance even after the statutory investigation by the police resulting in Ex.A.3-charge sheet. The very impact of the accident on the injured claimant resulting in two fractures and a permanent disablement would show that the incident speaks for itself. The non-examination of any other travellers in Tata Estate car is of no consequence, as it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that counts. There is absolutely no reason under the circumstances to disturb the findings of the Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving the bus was the cause for the accident. Coming to the quantum of compensation, grant of Rs.2,931/- towards medical expenses was based on computerized medical bills issued by Nizams Pharmacy, Hyderabad produced before the Tribunal. The award of Rs.5,000/- towards transport as against Rs.8,932/- covered by six travel receipts issued by Vikas Travels, Karimnagar under Ex.A.11 should in fact have been a matter of grievance for the claimant when the genuineness of Ex.A.11 bills was not doubted by the Tribunal. If the injured- claimant was probablised to have been disabled due to the fractures and the consequential surgeries for about five months, grant of compensation towards loss of earnings for those five months, the expenses for extra nourishment during that period etc., could not have been considered unjust and grant of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards 5% permanent disability cannot be considered high in comparison to the conventional sums that are usually awarded in respect of such surgeries and disablement. The interest awarded at 9% per annum was not shown to be higher than the then prevailing rate of interest, and therefore, there appears no justification for interfering with the quantum of compensation at this distance of time. The appeal should, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-08-2011 Ksn