JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, MACT cum Principal District Judge, Eluru in MV OP No.834 of 2009 dated 31.11.2011 in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., the claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The appellant is the claimant, 1st respondent is the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1625 and the 2nd respondent is the Regional Manager, APSRTC. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 08.06.2009 at about 01.45 p.m. Case of the petitioner is that, on the date of the accident, when he was riding his motor cycle on the left side of the road; at that time, the 1st respondent, being the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1625, belonging to the 2nd respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which he sustained simple and grievous injuries; immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru and from there to S.V.R. Neuro Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment; II Town PS, Eluru registered a case in Cr.No.139 of 2009 against the 1st respondent-driver; petitioner spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, but he could not regain normal health and ultimately, he sustained permanent disability, resulting in loss of his earnings of Rs.13,090/- per month as Senior Head Messenger in State Bank of India, Eluru. Hence the claim petition.

4. The 2nd respondent/APSRTC filed written statement before the Tribunal, denying the allegations of the claim petition and contending that the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner and that the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive.

5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues.

On behalf of claimant, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. The 2nd respondent examined the 1st respondent as RW.1 to substantiate their case, but no documents have been marked on their behalf.

6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, coupled with the contents of Exs.A.1-FIR, A.2 wound certificate, A.3 discharge summary and A.4 copy of charge sheet, recorded a finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-RW.1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner; on issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization and accordingly, directed the respondents to deposit the same within one month.

7. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Srihari, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent/

APSRTC. Perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the petitioner sustained permanent disability at 40% but the Tribunal assessed the same at 20% and awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- and that the Tribunal has not applied the relevant multiplier for calculating the amount towards permanent disability. He further submits that at the time of accident, petitioner was aged about 44 years and working as Head Messenger in State Bank of India and on account of the disability, he sustained loss of earnings of Rs.13,090/- per month. To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the disability sustained, petitioner examined the two doctors as PW.3 and PW.4. He further submits that PW.3 in his evidence stated that the petitioner sustained four injuries and out of it, two are grievous in nature and that PW.4 is one of the doctors in the Regional Medical Board, who signed the permanent disa