THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in MVOP.No. 124 of 2016 dated 05.01.2021.

2. Appellant is the petitioner/claimant and TSRTC are the respondents in MVOP.No.124 of 2016.

3. On 27.06.2015 at about 10.10 a.m., while the appellant/petitioner was proceeding towards Gandipet Road on his cycle on the left side, when he reached citizen hospital gate at that time one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-6286 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him, as a result he fell down, sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Citizen Hospital, Nallagandla for treatment, implants were inserted. The appellant/petitioner was completely bed ridden, he lost his income, he is not in a position to attend the job and he has engaged a servant by paying a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month to attend his day to day needs. He became totally disabled, lost his amenities, social status and he is the only earning member of the family and unmarried. Appellant/petitioner was working in Cognizant Technologies and was drawing salary of Rs.1,25,000/- per month, aged about 28 years as on the date of accident and claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter and contended that the compensation claimed by the appellant/petitioner is exorbitant, unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting injuries sustained by the petitioner, Ch.Dakshina murthy, due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bearing No.AP-11-Z-6286 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii) To what relief?

6. Appellant was examined as PW1, also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Driver of the crime vehicle has filed his affidavit as RW1 but the same was eschewed by the Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence let by the appellant/petitioner has awarded the compensation as under:

Bed rest for 3 months Rs.2,10,00/- Towards transportation Rs.10,000/- Towards Extra nourishment Rs.30,000/- For removal of implants Rs.35,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.75,000/-

----------------------

Total compensation Rs.3,60,000/-

---------------------

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing the petition till deposit of amount by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within two months. The appellant/petitioner was permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount along with interest and costs and the remaining half of the compensation amount shall be kept in any Nationalized bank for two years.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total compensation claimed by the appellant/petitioner, failed to consider the disability certificate issued by PW2 and also failed to consider the loss of earning capacity at 25%. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of earning, instead thereof has only awarded Rs.2,10,000/- and failed to award any amount towards transportation charges. The Tribunal failed to award medical bill, nursing charges and service charges of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal failed to award amount towards loss of amenities, social status, shock, mental agony and marriage prospects to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- and the interest to be awarded is at the rate of 9% per annum, prayed to enhance the amount. In support of his contentions, has relied upon the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Miss.K.Subhashini and another¹

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has properly