JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2012 in MVOP No. 116 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The claimant had applied to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries and Disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.09.2011.

4. The claimant's case is that on 15.09.2011 at about 5.15 AM, he was travelling in the bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-1679 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending bus’) belonging to the respondent as a passenger, when the offending bus reached near Nandigama crossroad, its driver drove the bus at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the driver lost control of the bus and dashed against the stationed auto from behind. As a result, the petitioner and others sustained injuries. On reporting the accident, Sattenapalli Rural P.S. registered the case against the offending bus driver in Cr. No. 99/2011.

5. The respondent filed a written statement denying the material allegations of the petition, inter-alia contending that the offending bus driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The claim of the claimant is excessive.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined, marked no documents.

7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs. 1,62,400/- under various heads together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondent, who is the owner of the offending bus. The respondent engaged the driver, and the respondent being master, is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.

8. Heard both the learned counsels. Perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to award proper compensation amount; the Tribunal erred in taking the Disability at 10%; the Tribunal erred in granting compensation towards medical expenses based on the medical bills submitted by the claimant; the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards loss of amenities of life.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement?

12. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver is not disputed by the respondent in O.P. by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding attained finality. The finding of the Tribunal concerning injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident is also not disputed by the respondent in O.P. by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding also attained finality.

POINT:

13. Based on the claimant's evidence, the Tribunal fixed his age at 42. The multiplier is applied to the age group of 41-45 years as per guidelines of Apex Court in Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 is fourteen. The said finding of the Tribunal is not disputed by the respondent in O.P.

14. The claimant's case is that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month doing limestone business. Taking into consideration the fact that no evidence is brought on record to substantiate the same, the Tribunal treated him as unskilled labour, whose n