1. This Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), assailing the order passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.821 of 2012, dated 29.06.2016.

2. Appellants are the respondents and respondent is the petitioner in MVOP.No.821 of 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants – respondents submits that the learned Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-468 without there being any acceptable evidence, ought to have seen that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the respondent – petitioner for grant of compensation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and unwarranted, erred in granting compensation against the appellants though there was contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-7Y-4879 on the road side without there being any indication, rate of interest, costs awarded are excessive and not in accordance with the principles of law while calculating the compensation and prayed to set aside the order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner submits that the Tribunal has awarded less amount and erroneously taken the disability at 50% instead of taking the disability at 76%, has not awarded future prospects and the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. The respondent – petitioner is entitled for future prospects in the absence of cross appeal and prayed to enhance the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner has filed calculation memo showing enhancement of compensation in support of his contention.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

               (i) Whether the respondent – petitioner was awarded just compensation, if so?

               (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require any interference of this Court?

8. Respondent – petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 (1)(a) of the MV Act r/w Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.05.2012 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

9. Respondent – petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2-Dr.D.Srinivas and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. Appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and nor marked any documents.

10. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Insofar as the awarded compensation Tribunal has taken monthly earnings of the respondent – petitioner as Rs.6,000/- and arrived as under:



along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of recovery holding that the appellants - respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

11. It is stated in the claim petition by the respondent – petitioner that he was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident [23.05.2012] and was doing business in the name and style of M/s.Shiva Sai Technologies, being the proprietor earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Nature of the business is manufactures and services of inverters. Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by commercial tax department in connection with VAT, Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by commercial tax department notifying the registration, Ex.A9 is the permanent registration certificate issued by the department of Industries of AP Government and Exs.A14 and A15 are the acknowledgment of monthly returns.

12. Though the respondent – petitioner has claimed Rs.30,000/- towards his monthly income on business, as the accident has taken place on 23.05.2012 the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- per month as the income of the respondent – petitioner which is on the lower side. This Court is of the view that if an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month is fixed towards the income of the respondent – petitioner will meet the ends of justice. The learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects for which the petitioner - respondent is entitled as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017) 16 SCC 680). The Tribunal has considered the period of loss of income for five months basing on the evidence of PW2 this Court is not interfering with the same.

13. PW2 deposed that respondent – petitioner was diagnosed to have sustained the following injuries:                External:

               1. Laceration over right thigh 6 x 3 x ½ c.m

               2. Punctured wound over left thigh

               3. Punctured wound over right leg

               Internal:

               1. compound type II-B fracture right femur,

               2. compound type II-B fracture left femur,

               3. compound type II-B right tibia and fibula fracture,

               4. compound type II-B left leg tibia fracture,

               5. fracture both bones left forearm

14. This Court is not interfering with the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal for transportation charges, clothing, extra nourishment, medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of comfort, compensation for the injuries and also the disability applied thereon.

15. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:



16. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court is not interfering with the same.

17. In the result, MACMA.No.2144 of 2017 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced as under:

               a) The impugned award dated 29.06.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.821 of 2012, stands modified.

               b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.11,05,000/- is enhanced to Rs.15,83,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

               c) Respondent – petitioner is directed to pay Court Fee on the enhanced amount.

               d) Appellants - respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

               e) Respondent – petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing security.

Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s shall stand closed. No costs.