HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2236 OF 2003 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS COMMON JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.637 of 1999 vide order dated 20-06-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, APSRTC preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, whereas claimant filed cross objections being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking enhanced compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 04-06-1999 while he was travelling in the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 11 belonging to respondent Corporation from Armoor towards Nizamabad, at Mamidipally Village sivar (outskirts) on Armoor to Nizamabad road, at about 7-45 PM, driver of the APSRTC bus, in which he (claimant) was travelling, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit a stationed lorry, as a result, he sustained fracture of right patella, tibia, injuries on the head, left leg, backside and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad Head Quarters, where he was treated by Dr. T. Narsing Rao, Orthopaedic Surgeon, and thereafter he took treatement from a private medical practitioner and spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses. He was doing Chudva Murmura business and earning Rs.6,000/- per month and after the accident, he is unable to move and his earnings came down. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and respondent No.1 adopted the counter filed by respondent No.2. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP10Z-11 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Dr. L. Ramulu, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.85,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved of the same, APSRTC preferred this appeal and not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed cross objections. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there any grounds for allowing the appeal or cross objections ? 9. Evidence of PW.2, the medical officer who treated the claimant, shows that he has not attended the claimant immediately after the accident, as such, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of this witness. Ex.A-3, the initial medical certificate, shows that claimant sustained fracture of left patella and crack fracture of left tibia. As the claimant sustained fracture of patella, which is a moving part of the body and that would take considerable time for healing and would cause some permanent disability, he must have spent some amount for treatement, extra-nourishment and attendant charges etc. Thus, it is clear that claimant sustained two fractures and out of that fracture of patella, which is a delicate part of the body, alone is a grievous. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant cannot be said to be inappropriate though slightly on higher side. Hence, it is neither a case for reducing nor enhancing the compensation. Thus, I see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, as such, both the appeal and the cross objections are liable to be dismissed. However, as per the latest decisions, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% from the date of petition till realization. 10. With the above modification in rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the Cross Objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 15, 2010. PV