IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2741 of 2006 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Kommula Karunakar Reddy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: Heard Smt. G. Nivedhita, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Varanasi Venkateshwar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant, while the 2nd respondent is stated to be not a necessary party to the appeal. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the 1st respondent herein was going by an auto on 03-04-2004 at about 10.30 A.M. when an APSRTC bus, driven rashly and negligently by the 1st respondent to the claim, dashed against the auto. The 1st respondent was claimed to have received injuries on the eye, nose and all over the body including fractures of right femur, left hip, frontal bone, radius, etc. The 1st respondent claimed to be aged 22 years and earning a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month as a partner of Sri Sai Chemicals and Scientifics and further claimed to be also doing personal cultivation earning Rs.60,000/- per annum from the same. The police registered crime No.32 of 2004 against the bus driver and the 1st respondent underwent a series of surgeries at Mythri Multi Specialty hospital, Hyderabad for various injuries and fractures including having debridement, fixation of screws and washers, skin grafting, etc. Apart from being an in-patient for about a month, the 1st respondent had to again undergo treatment, due to consequential problems developed even after treatment, as outpatient. The 1st respondent was unable to attend to any work and he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in total from the driver and the APSRTC. 3. The driver, contesting the claim, denied the allegations of the claimant and claimed to have driven the bus very carefully and slowly. The driver alleged the auto driver to be intoxicated and the auto to be overloaded. Hence, he desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Corporation also put the claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and contended that the overloaded auto driven at high speed dashed against the bus and it was not vice versa. The Corporation also, therefore, denied any liability to compensate the claimant. 5. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner in which the accident took place and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and R.W.1 during the course of enquiry while marking Exs.A.1 to A.20. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus relying on the evidence of the injured as P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 charge sheet and Ex.A.4 accident report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The Tribunal refused to place any reliance on the contrary claims of R.W.1, the bus driver, who admitted that he was suspended from service because of the accident and was also prosecuted before the Criminal Court. The independent investigation by the police was preferred than the interested version of R.W.1 in this regard. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of the injured P.W.1, who claimed to have been permanently left with 60% disability due to limping and inability to walk or sit even after getting himself treated at an expense of Rs.6,00,000/-. He also claimed to have engaged an attendant at a salary of Rs.1,500/- per month and the medical record produced by P.W.1 in Exs.A.5 to A.11, the last of the documents being disability certificate and the bills produced in Exs.A.13 to A.18 were also accepted. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A.12 salary certificate, Ex.A.19 partnership deed and Ex.A.20 pattedar pass book and also the evidence of a partner as P.W.3 and doctors as P.Ws.4 and 5 and opined that the injured had probablised sustaining the injuries alleged and spending Rs.3,66,613/- covered by the bills. The Tribunal, therefore, considered it just to award Rs.3,66,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transport. The Tribunal also considered the injured to be earning about Rs.3,000/- per month from agriculture and business, while refusing to accept the claim of earning Rs.5,000/- from each activity and awarded Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings for six months. The Tribunal also granted Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and accepting the disability at 60% to 65% as stated by P.W.4, the loss of future earnings was assessed on application of multiplier of 17 for the age of 22 years, which came to Rs.3,67,200/-. As the claimant claimed only Rs.2,00,000/- under this head, the same was restricted to the amount claimed and the total compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- was directed to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum. 7. The Corporation challenged the said award contending that the auto was carrying seven persons at the time of the accident and the auto driver was the cause for the accident having lost control over the auto. The non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the auto is fatal and R.W.1’s evidence should have been accepted. The assessment of the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and the award of heavy sum towards medical expenses are also not correct and hence, the Corporation desired the award to be reversed. 8. The point for consideration in this appeal is again about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. 9. The earliest version in Ex.A.1 placed the blame for accident squarely on the bus driver, which was found to be proved by independent investigation of the statutory agency as seen from Ex.A.2 charge-sheet. While Ex.A.4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report showed the accident to be not due to any mechanical defect in the bus, there was absolutely no allegation prior to the claim being preferred about the auto driver being in drunken state or the auto being overloaded or the contributory negligence of the auto driver being the primary cause for the accident. While the evidence of R.W.1 is tainted with interestedness, his own admission about being suspended due to this accident may indicate even his superiors to be satisfied about his culpable conduct leading to the accident. The result of the criminal case is, of course, not known. But the claims of P.W.1, which are equally interested, are corroborated by the independent investigation done by the police and on the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record, the conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be interfered with in the appeal. 10. If so, the tortious liability of the 1st respondent and the vicarious liability of the employer, the 2nd respondent to the claim, to justly and adequately compensate the injured for the injuries and their consequences, cannot be in question. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the proved bills under various heads came to an extent of Rs.3,66,613/-, in accepting which, the Tribunal committed no error. The course of treatment undergone for various grievous injuries sustained by the injured was spoken to by P.Ws.4 and 5, corroborated by the medical record and award of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings have to be considered conservative in that background. If the injured owned Ac.2.20 cents of land and was also a partner in a promising business, assessing his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month by the Tribunal was equally conservative, which is not being revised only due to the injured himself not preferring any cross appeal or cross objections. Even the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer or the notional income assessed even in case of house wives by superior Courts or the notional income adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act even in case of non-earning persons, would show the absence of any justification for limiting the probable income of the injured to Rs.3,000/- per month. The consequences of the injuries are evident from the evidence on record and the injured, who had become practically immobile, was assessed to have suffered 60% disability, which was also functional with reference to the whole body and his avocation. In fact, in view of the lesser claim made by the claimant in this regard, the loss of earnings were granted only at about a fraction of what was assessed even by the Tribunal. Interest awarded was a minimum of 6 per cent per annum and the quantum does not require interference in any manner. 11. The appeal should, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 13-10-2011 Svv