IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1987 of 2005 Between: The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad. .. Appellant AND Balliala Narsaiah and another .. Respondents ORDER: The appeal is directed against the award dated 18-06-2004 in O.P.No.446 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Karimnagar. The 1st respondent herein was driving his van with a load of toddy on 31-05-1999 and in the outskirts of Poodur village, APSRTC bus No.AP-10-Z-3392, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the van. The 1st respondent herein and other inmates of the van sustained grievous injuries and he was treated at Government Hospital, Jagityal, and then at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Surgeries and skin grafting were performed during treatment till discharge on 18-06-1999. The 1st respondent herein suffered a permanent disability due to limping and shortening of the leg in spite of huge expenses and treatment even after discharge. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a driver earlier, which he lost and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Corporation. While the driver of the bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the Corporation denied the allegations of the claimant and contended that the driver of the bus took all precautions to control the bus, which was going slowly and the 1st respondent herein himself was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding from the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2 charge sheet that the accident was caused by the driver of the bus by his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 in accepting permanent partial disability of 40% being left with PW.1 due to the malunited fracture of right femur resulting in shortening of right lower limb. The difficulty in squatting and limping during walk were noted and with reference to Exs.A.4 to A.11 relating to the treatment of the injured, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.13,930/- towards medical expenses covered by Ex.A.6 bills and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of future amenities. Towards permanent partial disability resulting in 40% proportionate loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.1500/- as opposed to the claim of Rs.3,000/- made by PW.1 and the resultant proportionate loss was assessed at Rs.600/- per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied in respect of the age of 39 years and future loss of earnings was assessed at Rs.1,15,200/-. The compensation in total was rounded off to Rs.1,79,000/- on which interest at 9% p.a. was awarded against both the respondents jointly and severally. The Corporation challenges the said award in this appeal, firstly questioning the conclusion about the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the absence of any fault on the part of the van driver. The van driver was claimed to be in an intoxicated condition. The Corporation also contended that the absence of owner and insurer of the van makes the claim bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The assessment of the compensation and the application of the multiplier were claimed to be on high side. Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, are heard and none entered appearance for the 2nd respondent before this Court. Though a feeble attempt was made by the Corporation to question the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, it is seen from the record that the driver himself in spite of being impleaded as 1st respondent in the claim neither appeared before the Tribunal nor contested the claim nor was examined during the enquiry. While the respondents had no evidence to contradict the claims of the injured-PW.1, his version is corroborated not only by the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, but also the conclusion of the independent statutory investigating agency in Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence are, therefore, consistent with the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the bus driver and there was no evidence or proof about the claimant being in an intoxicated condition while driving the van at the time of the accident. Coming to the calculation of the just and adequate compensation payable to the injured claimant, the medical expenses granted were only expenses proved by Ex.A.6-bunch of 33 medical bills. What was awarded towards pain and suffering due to the compound fracture of right femur is no way higher than the conventional damages awarded under that head in petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence disclosed that notwithstanding the treatment undergone, there was shortening of right lower limb by 1½ inches presenting a permanent difficulty in squatting and a permanent disadvantage in walking due to limping and the resultant loss of amenities in future in the life of the injured-PW.1 cannot be considered to be overcompensated by the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. When it came to the effect of the permanent partial disability on the capacity of the injured-PW.1 to earn in future, the Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.1500/- per month as against his claim of getting Rs.3,000/- per month as driver and the said assessment is so conservative as to be much less than even the minimum wages payable to such drivers under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time. The disability was attempted to be compensated only with Rs.600/- being 40% of such sum of Rs.1500/- and the same cannot be considered to be excessive, more so, when the consequential disability for PW.1 to continue his avocation as a driver would even have been of a higher percentage due to shortening of right leg. The only factor that can be questioned is the multiplier selected for the person aged 39 years at the relevant time and the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 as against a multiplier of 15 that should have been adopted as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Therefore, it will be suffice if the compensation rounded off to Rs.1,79,000/- is reduced by a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards that difference and the award needs to be confirmed in all respects including the rate of interest at 9% p.a., which was not shown to be in any away different from the rate of interest adopted by the banks at the relevant time. In the result, the award dated 18-06-2004 in O.P.No.446 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Karimnagar is modified by reducing the compensation by Rs.7,000/- and otherwise confirming the said award in all respects. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298