1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 12.06.2008 in OP No.1977 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, MACT–cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) both the claimant and APSRTC preferred MACMA Nos.2567 of 2010 and 730 of 2010 respectively.

Since both the appeals arise out of same award, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties in both the appeals are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.

2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) On 12.03.2004, the claimant boarded the APSRTC Luxury bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4477 at Medak to go to Hyderabad and when the said bus reached Gunfoundry, Hyderabad at about 4:15pm, while the claimant was still alighting from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly raised the speed of the bus, thereby the claimant fell down on the road and the rear wheels of the bus ran over both the legs of the claimant. The claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right foot and left leg and suffered 40% partial and permanent disability. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. On these pleas, the claimant filed O.P.No.1977 of 2006 against the respondents/ APSRTC and claimed Rs.8,45,484/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the OP.

b) Respondents 1 and 2/APSRTC filed counter and denied all the material averments made in the claim petition and urged to put the claimant in strict proof of the same. Respondents 1 and 2 further denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant. Finally, they contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the OP.

c) During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked on behalf of claimant. RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents.

d) A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal having regard to the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A3-Charge sheet, has held that the APSRTC bus driver was responsible for the accident. Sofaras quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a under different heads as follows:

Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000-00

Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000-00

Medical expenses Rs.1,65,484-00

Loss of Income Rs. 12,000-00

Future loss of income Rs. 54,000-00

Future treatment Rs. 25,000-00

Transport charges Rs. 5,000-00

Loss of amenities of life and Loss of expectation of life Rs. 12,516-00

Total Rs.3,04,000-00

Hence the appeals by the claimant on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and APSRTC on the ground of its exorbitance.

3) Heard arguments of Sri M.M. Ali, learned counsel for appellant/ claimant in M.A.C.M.A No.2567 of 2009 and for respondent in MACMA No.730 of 2010, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/ APSRTC in MACMA No.2567 of 2009 and for appellants in MACMA No.730 of 2010.

4) Challenging the award, learned counsel for appellant/claimant in MACMA No.2567 of 2009 argued that the Tribunal while computing loss of future income erred in fixing his notional income at Rs.300/- p.m inspite of the fact that his present salary is Rs.6,000/- p.m. Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal ought to have taken the said income i.e, Rs.6,000/-p.m for computation and ought to have calculated the compensation accordingly. He further submitted that Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, has to be followed for such computation. He relied upon the decision reported in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India and another (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 148).He thus prayed to allow his appeal and enhance the compensation.

5 a) Per contra, learned counsel for appellant/APSRTC in MACMA No.730 of 2010 while impugning the award firstly argued that the Tribunal committed grave error in fixing fault on the driver of APSRTC instead of the claimant. Learned counsel argued that the bus in questi