The court emphasized the necessity of accounting for future earning capacity and permanent disability when determining compensation in personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A. No. 4342 of 2012 filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. disputing the quantum of compensation and fixing of 75% liability, and M.A.C.M.A. No. 1375 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation and disputing the fixing of 25% liability are directed against the very same order and decree dated 10.08.2010 passed in O.P. No. 1797 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 27.05.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. at Autonagar, Hyderabad, while the petitioner along with her friend was proceeding on a motorcycle, at that time, one RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-1589, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was hospitalized and she spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A.16 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

6. After hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- and after deducting 25% of the amount towards the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, awarded an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner while fixing the liability of 75% on the driver of the offending vehicle and directed both the respondents to pay the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the said award, the APSRTC has filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 4342 of 2012, and the petitioner has filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 1375 of 2011.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the future loss of earning capacity based on the permanent disability, which was fixed at 60%. The petitioner is unmarried and on account of skin grafting, her face and other parts of the body were disfigured. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle alone and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability at 25% on the part of the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under various heads as claimed by the petitioner. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the Tribunal erred in fixing 75% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for three grievous injuries, Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings.

10. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, she categorically deposed that she sustained injuries, including fractures. PW-2 Medical Officer deposed that PW-1 sustained (1) crush injury to the right hand and forearm with loss of dorsal tissue, explosive cut tendons, wrist joint and ulna, c