JUDGMENT:

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747 of 2008 filed by the R.T.C., are directed against the very same judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2007, passed in O.P.No.871 of 2004 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

4. The claimant filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 09.12.2003. It is stated that on the said date, the claimant and his friends Shankerlal, S.Prem Kumar, went to Abids to meet their friend and while they were returning from Abids to Karwan on Hero Honda bearing No.AP 13 E 7368, and were passing Vijayanagar Colony near A1 Saba Hotel at about 6.30 P.M., the claimant has noticed R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2732 standing at the bus stop and the claimant on his way riding motorbike and all of a sudden, the driver of the bus moved the bus in the same direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant fell down on the road and the right side front wheel of the bus ran over on the left hand shoulder of the claimant. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Mahaveer Hospital and from there to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, where an operation was conducted and his left hand was amputated upto the shoulder. The claimant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the R.T.C. bus and the respondents, who are the owner and custodian of the R.T.C. bus, the claim petition came to be filed making both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. Both the respondents filed written statement denying the allegations and contended that the claimant/injured has to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident. It is also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant, as such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive, speculative and unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,70,800/- under various heads, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the present Appeals came to be filed by the claimant and the R.T.C.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Learned Counsel for the claimant would submit that though the claimant is aged about 22 years, and he was prosecuting degree 3rd year, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2010) 10 SCC 254 the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further submitted that since the claimant was aged about 22 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier ‘18’ instead of ‘17’. It is also submitted that in view of the settled position of law, the claimant is als