Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'the Corporation'), aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.896 of 1995. During the pendency of the present Appeal, the 1st respondent-claimant died on 10-05-2006 and consequently, his wife and two sons have been impleaded as respondents 3, 4 and 5. The 2nd respondent in this Appeal is the Driver of the Corporation, due to whose rash and negligent driving, the accident alleged to have been committed. The 2nd respondent-driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal and as well as in this Court. For convenience sake the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the M.V.O.P. The claimant was working as a Laboratory Technician with the Andhra Medical College at Visakhapatnam. On 07-04-1995, while he was proceeding on his bicycle from his house for his duties at Andhra Medical College, when he reached Maddilapalem bus stop at about 8-30 am, he noticed a stationary bus on the left side of the road and therefore, he was passing for the right side of the said stationary bus and at about the same time, another city bus belonging to the Appellant-Corporation, bearing registration No. AEZ 735, driven by the 2nd respondent herein, came in a rash and negligent manner, in violation of the traffic rules, dashed against him and proceeded further without stopping. The beat constable, who is available at the accident site, followed the bus, stopped at Venkojipalem and thus, brought it to the III Town Traffic Police Station. The claimant has been admitted to the King George Hospital-the General Hospital attached to the Andhra Medical College at Visakhapatnam. He was treated as an inpatient till 11-09-1995, as the fracture suffered by him to D-12 vertebrae has resulted in paralisation of his lower limbs and he has been discharged as there was no improvement in his neurological condition. Ultimately, the claimant had been discharged from the Government service as the Regional Medical Board on 29-02-1996 declared him invalid. Hence, the claimant instituted the M.V.O.P., seeking a total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- under various heads, as follows: 1. For Special damages:- a) Loss of earnings Rs. 50,000-00 b) Transport to Hospital Rs. 5,000-00 c) Extra Nourishment & Medicines Rs. Ultimately, the claimant had been discharged from the Government service as the Regional Medical Board on 29-02-1996 declared him invalid. Hence, the claimant instituted the M.V.O.P., seeking a total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- under various heads, as follows: 1. For Special damages:- a) Loss of earnings Rs. 50,000-00 b) Transport to Hospital Rs. 5,000-00 c) Extra Nourishment & Medicines Rs. 25,000-00 2. For General Damages:- a) Compensation for pain & suffering Rs.1,00,000-00 b) Compensation for Continuing or perment Disability, if any. Rs. 1,50,000-00 c) Compensation for loss of earning power Rs. 2,00,000-00 d) Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 30,000-00 ------------------- Rs.5,60,000-00 ------------------- The claimant had examined himself as PW-1 and he has also examined the Professor and Head of the Department of the Orthopedics of the Andhra Medical College and King George Hospital, as PW-2. He has also examined PW-3 - an eyewitness to the accident. Exs.A-1 to A-9 have been got marked on his side. Though the Driver of the bus remained ex parte, on behalf of the Appellant-Corporation, he has been examined as RW-1. The Traffic Inspector of the Corporation has been examined as RW-2, while the Conductor of the bus has been examined as RW-3. Two documents have been marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. Ex.A-1 is the true copy of the FIR lodged with the Police at about 10-30 am on 07-04-1995. Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate issued by the King George Hospital on 28-04-1995. Ex.A-3 is the true copy of the charge sheet filed into the crime on 15-05-1995. Ex.A-4 is the Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School Leaving Certificate, issued on 17-05-1967, of the claimant, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 15-08-1950. Ex.A-5 is the salary certificate issued by the Lay Secretary and Treasurer of the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapantam on 10-10-1996, certifying that the claimant had been paid for the month of March 1995, a total salary of Rs.3,263/-. Ex.A-6 is the copy of the letter addressed by the Principal of the Andhra Medical College, to the Superintendent of the King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam for the purposes of assessing the suitability of the claimant for the purpose of his service. Ex.A-7 is the order dated 29-02-1996 relieving the claimant from the Government service on grounds of medical invalidation. Ex.A-8 is the medical bill dated 05-11-1997 for establishing the value of the Catheter as Rs.75/-. Ex.A-7 is the order dated 29-02-1996 relieving the claimant from the Government service on grounds of medical invalidation. Ex.A-8 is the medical bill dated 05-11-1997 for establishing the value of the Catheter as Rs.75/-. Ex.A-9 is the disability certificate issued by PW-2 on 11-11-1997, declaring to have suffered 100% disability. Ex.X-1 is the case-sheet maintained by the King George Hospital, from the date of admission of the claimant there. As is noticed supra, Ex.B-1 is the Xerox copy of the statistical return (SR) for the city bus bearing registration No. AEZ 735 for 04-07-1995. Ex.B-2 is the true copy of the MTD card issued to the bus AEZ 735, indicating the number of stages for the city bus concerned. The claimant has been examined himself as PW-1. He has described as to how the accident had occasioned. He had also deposed that it is the city bus, which was coming in the opposite direction, which had hit him and did not stop, but ran away. PW-3, who is said to be an eyewitness has clearly deposed that he was waiting at a nearby pan shop and had an occasion to witness the accident and it is he, who gathered the address of the claimant and went and informed his inmates about the accident. Therefore, the Trial Court, placing reliance upon the depositions of PWs.1 and 3, had come to the conclusion that the accident, in question, had caused only by the city bus plying on route No.60 C, i.e., between the old post office to Aarilova Colony, bearing registration No. AEZ 745. It will be necessary here to examine the contention canvassed by the Appellant-Corporation in its counter- affidavit and the evidence lead in by it in support of it. It is contended that the accident had not been caused by the city bus in question at all and that the city bus reached Maddilapalem at about 9-00 am, whereas the accident in question had taken place around 8-30 or 8-45 am and, therefore, the city bus and it's driver have been needlessly blamed and implicated in the accident. The Traffic Inspector of the Corporation has been examined as R.W.2 to point out that, at least, four city busses belonging to the Appellant-Corporation had passed by Maddilapalem then and that the claimant had unnecessarily implicated the bus in question and it's driver. The Traffic Inspector of the Corporation has been examined as R.W.2 to point out that, at least, four city busses belonging to the Appellant-Corporation had passed by Maddilapalem then and that the claimant had unnecessarily implicated the bus in question and it's driver. It was further pleaded that there are three Ticket Issue Completion points (TICs) in between old post office and Maddilapalem and the Conductor of a city bus is required to stop the bus to complete the statistical return duly noting down the number tickets issued en route and then start the onward journey. In the statistical return of 09-04-1995, the Conductor of the bus in question, RW-3 had clearly made entries of the number of tickets issued at various stages and hence, the bus in question had stopped at all the three TIC points and that the bus having commenced its trip on 8-00 am at the old post office, could not have reached Maddilapalem by about 8-30 am and it is quite probable that it might have reached around 9-00 am. RW-3 has also deposed that no accident had occasioned while he was conducting the bus in question and that, in fact, he had issued tickets to the passenger, who boarded the bus at Maddilapalem bus stop. As is noticed supra, RW-1 is the Driver of the bus. He has deposed that noticing the stationary bus on the left side of the road at Maddilapalem, he had passed by it very carefully and that he has not caused any accident. But, RW-1 has admitted that when his bus reached near about Venkojipalem, a Police Constable had signaled him to stop the bus and consequently, he stopped the bus and that it is the Police Constable, who informed him that the bus had hit a cyclist at Maddilapalem and that the Police Constable demanded the Driver to come and report to the III Town Traffic Police Station. It is admitted that RW-3-Conductor gave instructions to the Driver to take the bus to the III Town Traffic Police Station along with the passengers and RW-1 reported that he has not caused any accident and hence, as the Officers of the Corporation have intervened, the Police have allowed the bus to continue it's operations. It is admitted that RW-3-Conductor gave instructions to the Driver to take the bus to the III Town Traffic Police Station along with the passengers and RW-1 reported that he has not caused any accident and hence, as the Officers of the Corporation have intervened, the Police have allowed the bus to continue it's operations. The fact that emerges from the deposition of RWs-1 and 3 is that the bus has passed by Maddilapalem junction at about 9-00 am and that it is a Police Constable, who asked the bus to be stopped nearby Venkojipalem and consequently, it was brought to their notice, for the first time, that a cyclist has been dashed against by the bus at Maddilapalem. If the theory set up by the Appellant-Corporation that it is not the city bus plying on route No.60 C bearing registration No. AEZ 735, which has caused the accident, there are no reasons that have been attributed for the Police Constable to chase the bus and stop it at Venkojipalem. Consequently, if the bus had not reached Maddilapalem at about 8-30 or 8-45 am, but, in fact, reached thereafter, there would have been commotions noticed both by the Driver and the Conductor of this bus, because the accident had occasioned between 8-30 and 8-45 am. They never deposed that by the time they reached Maddilapalem area itself, there was commotion and consequently, the accident has already occasioned even prior to their reaching. Further, the Police have investigated into the crime after registering Ex.A-1-FIR and they have proceeded against RW-1-Driver of the bus. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that it is this city bus, which had caused the accident, appears to be fair and accurate conclusion on this aspect. There are no reasons for PWs-1 and 3 to implicate unnecessarily and attribute rashness and negligence to RW-1. Strangely enough, an alternative plea has been taken by the Corporation that it is the claimant, who is wholly responsible and contributed 100% to the accident. There are no reasons for PWs-1 and 3 to implicate unnecessarily and attribute rashness and negligence to RW-1. Strangely enough, an alternative plea has been taken by the Corporation that it is the claimant, who is wholly responsible and contributed 100% to the accident. It is pleaded that coming from behind a stationary bus, he suddenly started passing by the said bus by coming on to it's right side and by that time, the city bus was already in the process of overtaking the stationery bus and hence, the claimant himself is responsible and contributed 100% for the accident as he could have waited and made sure that he can pass by the stationary bus safely without coming in the conflict zone with the vehicles plying in the opposite direction. This alternative plea itself clearly suggests that the Appellant-Corporation is in the know as to how and the manner in which the accident had occurred. If the bus in question is not the one, which is involved in the accident or the one, which has caused the accident, such an alternative plea could not have been taken at all. Even a mere look at this alternative plea would disclose that if a bus has already lying stationed on the left side of the road and if another bus were to pass by it, the Driver of the bus, who is passing by, must take all necessary care and precautions for anticipating the traffic that will be flowing from behind the stationery bus. He might have made sure that there would be adequate space in between his own bus and the stationary bus for the other traffic to flow. If, on the other hand, in his judgment there is no adequate space, on the road, available, he should have taken all necessary precautions including blowing the horn of the bus in such a manner as to caution the traffic alert to follow the stationary bus from behind, to know about the oncoming RTC bus in the opposite direction. If adequate space in between the stationary bus and the oncoming bus has not been left, even for a cyclist to pass by, it clearly reflects the total lack of application of mind on the part of the Driver of the oncoming vehicle. If adequate space in between the stationary bus and the oncoming bus has not been left, even for a cyclist to pass by, it clearly reflects the total lack of application of mind on the part of the Driver of the oncoming vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that it is the city bus plying on route No.60 C bearing registration No. AEZ 735, driven by RW-1 is the one, which is wholly responsible for causing the accident is unassailable. Then comes the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant. PW-2 is the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedics of the Andhra Medical College/King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He deposed that the claimant had suffered a fracture to D-12 Vertebrae, resulting in paralysis of both the lower limbs. He has also deposed that the claimant had lost control over his bladder and bowl. He was treated conservatively in the hospital, found that there was not much improvement in his neurological condition, and has been discharged from the hospital on 11-09-1995. The claimant was advised to undergo physiotherapy and Supportive Therapy and that he has been examined again on 11-11-1997 and found that there is no power in both his lower limbs. He has also found the incontinence of bladder and bowl of the patient. The patient was found to be on continuous catheterization for emptying his urine. PW-2 has also found that the claimant is not able to sit for long hours and that he is using a wheel chair. PW-2 assessed the disability of the claimant as 100% and it is permanent in nature. He issued Ex.A-9 disability certificate. Though PW-2 has been cross-examined, nothing worthwhile has been extracted. PW-2 is, undoubtedly, an Orthopedic Surgeon of standing and being the Head of the Department of a Medical College and it's attached General Hospital, he is undoubtedly, an expert to depose on the condition of the claimant. Since, he has physically treated the patient and examined the patient even two years later and found that the senses of the patient have not been restored or recovered, assessed the disability as 100%. His deposition, therefore, clearly satisfies the requirements of Sections 45, 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act and has got to be taken for its value. Ex.A-5 is the salary certificate issued by the competent officer of the Andhra Medical College. His deposition, therefore, clearly satisfies the requirements of Sections 45, 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act and has got to be taken for its value. Ex.A-5 is the salary certificate issued by the competent officer of the Andhra Medical College. The claimant was paid a sum of Rs.3,263/- as his salary and allowances for the month of March 1995, that is immediately preceding the date of accident. Ex.A-4 is the Multipurpose School Leaving Certificate issued on 17-05-1967, wherein the date of birth of the claimant was recorded as 15-08-1950. Therefore, as on 07-04-1995, the claimant had not completed 45 years of age at all and there is hardly any material to the contra. Acting upon II Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier to be applied for the victims in the age group of 40 - 45 years is 15. But, unfortunately, the Tribunal had reckoned the age of the claimant by the time he came to depose before the Tribunal, by which time, coolly two years have been rolled by from the date of the accident, therefore, for the purpose of compensation, the age of the victim at the time of the accident is to be taken into consideration, but not the age at the time of deposition before the Court. Consequently, the Tribunal had committed an error in applying the multiplier 13, which is available for the age bracket of 45 - 50 years of the victims. If multiplier 15 were applied, the amount of compensation would have increased that much more. Since, this is a case of 100% disability, the entire salary and allowances earned by the claimant have to be reckoned as lost out, nothing should have been taken away therefrom. Clearly, he had 15 years of active Government service left at the time of the accident and thus, he had suffered a great deal on that count. The accident had also caused damage to his quality of life to immeasurable extent. His both lower limbs have been paralyzed, thus, he lost his motorability therein. He had confined himself to a bed and became inconsonant as well. He has deposed that he had been securing a manual help for attending to on him. This is an expenditure, which has been thrust upon him wholly due to the accident. His both lower limbs have been paralyzed, thus, he lost his motorability therein. He had confined himself to a bed and became inconsonant as well. He has deposed that he had been securing a manual help for attending to on him. This is an expenditure, which has been thrust upon him wholly due to the accident. The Tribunal had not chosen to award any compensation for the head of loss of consortium and towards transportation charges. It has also not awarded damages for the loss of earnings due to hospitalization that followed the accident. However, as against the total claim of Rs.5,60,000/-, compensation was awarded in a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-. As the subsequent event of the death of the claimant during the pendency of the Appeal reveals that the accident had left too much of pain and suffering not only for the claimant, but also for his dependents. In all other circumstances, but for the death of the claimant, I would have no hesitation to enhance the quantum of compensation to the extent it is claimed, but however, only a sum of Rs.50,000/- is denied by the Tribunal. For the conservative approach adapted by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation cannot be totally faulted, though it is not reflective of the realistic assessment in that regard. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. The hearing fee of the Appeal is assessed as Rs.5,000/-