The multiplier method for calculating compensation for permanent disability requires evidence of loss of earning capacity; absent such evidence, courts must award lump sum amounts reflecting actual loss.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 29.07.2024, in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2019 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The appellant is the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is the claimant and the respondent No.2 is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. Since the respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, he is shown as ‘not necessary party’ in the appeal in its cause title.

3. The facts stated in the claim petition are briefly as follows:-

On 05.03.2018 at about 12.00 noon, the claimant and his wife were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AA-9841 from their village to Ananthapuramu. When they reached near the place of accident, the respondent No.2, the driver of a A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-205 of the respondent No.1 driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant on its rear side. As a result, the claimant and his wife fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu and later in a private hospital, Ananthapuramu where a surgery was conducted and steel rods were inserted to his leg. After his discharge from the hospital, he took physiotherapy treatment and special diet at a private clinic. He spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. He was an agriculturist and also doing business. He was aged 38 years at the time of accident. As a result of the accident, he became permanently disabled and, as such he claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 alone contested the claim by filing a counter denying the allegations and further stating that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and further attributed that there was contributory / composite negligence on the part of the claimant.

5. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW1 and the doctors who treated him were examined as PWs 2 and 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A7:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A2 : Attested copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A3 : Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A4 : Bunch of medical bills for Rs.18,451/-.

Ex.A5 : Disability certificate Ex.A6 : Copy of discharge summary issued by Dr. Y.S.R. Memorial Hospital, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.A7 : X-ray

6. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was filed.

7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus i.e., the respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,92,051/-. The Tribunal granted interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, along with costs payable by both the respondents with joint and several liability.

8. Aggrieved by the award and decree, the respondent No.1 filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation and also the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.2, appealing that there was no negligence of respondent No.2.

9. Insofar as rash and negligence is concerned, the claimant being an eyewitness, gave his evidence. To refute the same, the driver of the bus, i.e., respondent No.2 was examined as RW1. The claimant deposed the narration of the accident as stated in the claim petition. The driver stated that while he was driving the bus on that day, he had seen one male and one female person coming on the motor cycle bearing No.AP02 AA 9841 and that they had suddenly appeared on the main road by crossing from one lane to opposite lane with high speed and without observing traffic, and therefore, he had suddenly applied brakes. He further stated that the rider of the motor cycle could not control the vehicle and the motor cycle skidded as a result of which the persons on it had fallen down on the road and sustained inj