The court affirmed that a police charge sheet against a driver, if unchallenged, supports a finding of negligence, and that compensation based on medical evidence and functional disability is just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is filed by the appellant-RTC questioning the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,35,530/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date ofrealization in favour of the respondent/claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.07.2012. It was stated that on 09.07.2012 at about 12.00 noon, while the claimant along with his wife and daughter was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 N 5229 towards Chinthriyala Village, near Vellatoor village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2090, driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the motor cycle, causing severe injuries to the claimant, including fractures to his right hip joint and right femur. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,35,530/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the saidawarded, the appellant filed the present appeal.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for theparties and perused the record.

4. A careful examination of the record discloses that the main contention of the appellant-RTC is that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the respondent/motorcyclist and that the driver of the RTC bus (R.W.1) was not negligent. The appellant further challenged the non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, the assessment of functional disability, and the quantum of compensation awarded. The appellant relied on the evidence of R.W.1, but the record establishes that the police, after thorough investigation, filed a charge sheet under Ex.A2 against R.W.1 in Crime No.115 of 2012. No steps were taken by the RTC or R.W.1 to challenge or quash the charge sheet. The Tribunal rightly evaluated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 (Doctor), and Exs.A1 to A8 to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver was the proximate cause of the accident. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant-RTC cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversitywarranting interference by this Court.

5. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal evaluated the medical records, disability certificate (Ex.A4), medical bills (Ex.A6), and oral evidence of P.W.2. Considering the nature of injuries, removal of the hip ball, and functional disability affecting the claimant's occupation as a driver, the Tribunal properly assessed his monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and determined the loss of future earnings at 15% functional disability by applying the multiplier of 17 appropriate to his age of 30 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,37,700/- towards loss of future income, along with legitimate amounts towards treatment expenses, loss of income during treatment, pain and suffering, and miscellaneous expenses. Upon proper evaluation of the material on record under various heads, the Tribunal assessed and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,35,530/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. This Court finds that the assessment made and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are just, reasonable, and based on evidence, and do notwarrant any interference in this appeal.

6. On an overall consideration of the matter, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal warranting interference in exercise