( 1 ) RESPONDENT who received injuries due to an accident caused by a bus bearing no. AP 9z 3973 belonging to the appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the appellants and examined himself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and marked exs. A-1 to A-104 in support of his case. Appellants who filed a counter contesting the claim of the respondent did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary. The tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellants awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the respondents before the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE points for consideration are: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellants? (2) To what compensation is the respondent entitled to? point No. 1:- ( 3 ) SINCE the respondent was travelling as a passenger in the bus and since his evidence on record shows that the bus dashed a road side tree, the doctrine of RES IPSA loquitur applies to the facts and circumstances of the case, and so the burden is on the appellants to establish that the driver of the bus was not negligent at the time of accident, but the appellants failed to adduce evidence to show that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Therefore, I hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellants. The point is answered accordingly. Point No. 2:- ( 4 ) THE evidence of the respondent as p. W. 1 is that he suffered a fracture to his right leg at two places and a fracture to his right arm and that he underwent treatment in government hospital at Yellareddy for some time and was later referred to Gandhi hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated for one and half months and underwent three operations and that he, who is aged 34 years earning Rs. 8,000/- per month prior to the accident, is not able to do any work after the accident. The evidence of P. W. 2, the doctor who issued Ex. 8,000/- per month prior to the accident, is not able to do any work after the accident. The evidence of P. W. 2, the doctor who issued Ex. A-102, read with ex. A-104 shows that there are compound fractures of both bones of right leg and right arm. The Tribunal made an observation in his deposition that the wound of the right ankle of the respondent measuring 2" X 2" did not heal, and that he has a shortening of the right leg by 3" and so he is not able to walk properly and that there is a healed scar on the right elbow. So it is clear that respondent suffered fractures in the accident and must have undergone pain and suffering for which he is entitled to rs. 10,000/- as compensation. ( 5 ) SINCE the respondent was in hospital for nearly two months, he is entitled to rs. 4,000/- towards attendant charges and rs. 3,000/- towards extra nourishment and rs. 3,000/- towards transport charges. ( 6 ) SINCE the accident occurred towards the end of 1995, though there is no reliable evidence on record relating to the income of the respondent since even a coolies was earning about Rs. 40/- per day at that time income of the respondent would not be less than Rs. 1,200/- per month. Since he must have been out of work for a period of at least ten months due to injuries received by him in the accident, the respondent is entitled to rs. 12,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. ( 7 ) THOUGH the evidence of P. W. 3 that the respondent has 80% disability cannot be taken to be true, since the respondent does have a permanent disability, due to the shortening of the leg, respondent whose earnings are taken as Rs. 1,200/- per month, was having an annual earning capacity of rs. 14,400/ -. Since respondent was aged about 45 years at the time of accident, the multiplier as per Bhagavan Das v. Mohd. Arif can be taken as 11 . If he had 100% disability respondent would have been entitled to rs. 14,400/- x 11 = 1,58,400/- towards that disability. Due to the 3" shortening of the leg and other fractures, the disability of the respondent can be taken as 60%, 60% of rs. 1,58,400/- would be Rs. 94,600/ -. Arif can be taken as 11 . If he had 100% disability respondent would have been entitled to rs. 14,400/- x 11 = 1,58,400/- towards that disability. Due to the 3" shortening of the leg and other fractures, the disability of the respondent can be taken as 60%, 60% of rs. 1,58,400/- would be Rs. 94,600/ -. Therefore, respondent can be awarded rs. 1,00;000/- towards the permanent disability suffered by him as a result of the accident. ( 8 ) THE medical bills including Ex. A-99 produced by the respondent show that the respondent spent about. Rs. 16,473/- for purchase of medicines etc. Assuming that they are only a few of the bills, respondent can be awarded Rs. 17,500/- towards purchase of medicines etc. Thus, the respondent is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- + rs. 4,000/- + 3,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + rs. 12,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 17,500/- = rs. 1, 49, 500/- as compensation for the injuries received by him in the accident. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Therefore, i hold that the respondent is entitled to rs. 1,50,000/ - as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident with interest at 9% p. a. from the date of petition till date of deposit. The point is answered accordingly. ( 9 ) IN view of my finding on the point no. 2 an award is passed for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent against the appellants with interest at 9% p. a. , from the date of petition till date of deposit with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. Rest of the claim of respondent is dismissed without costs. Parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.