JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 05.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.32/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- I Addl.District Judge, Chittoor, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.04.2011. 4. The facts would show that on 23.04.2011 the petitioner boarded APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 3790 at Kotha Road Bus Stop to go to college, and at about 09.40 a.m. the bus was proceeding towards Chittoor, and when it reached Bangapalli railway gate, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tamarind tree, as a result of which, the front portion of bus was badly damaged, the inmates of bus sustained injuries and out of them, two or three persons died and the petitioner who was standing in front of bus sustained injuries on her abdomen and also sustained other bleeding injuries all over body, she fell unconscious and shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor, and later she was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore. SI of Police, Puthalapat P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.45/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of APSRTC bus. Due to accident, the petitioner sustained open would in right iliac region of abdomen with evisceration of bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed ischemic changes, and also sustained a fracture of left clavicle. She underwent operation due to injury to abdomen and she could not evacuate shit in the normal way. So, doctors inserted a separate bag for collection of shit. On that advice of doctors, she admitted in hospital again on 17.01.2012 and she was found developed an anastigmatic dehiscence and required re-laparotomy and re-stoma. The second surgery was conducted and she was diagnosed with multiple intra-abdominal collections. So, doctors inserted a separate bag for collection of shit. On that advice of doctors, she admitted in hospital again on 17.01.2012 and she was found developed an anastigmatic dehiscence and required re-laparotomy and re-stoma. The second surgery was conducted and she was diagnosed with multiple intra-abdominal collections. The petitioner spent Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment, transportation, medicines etc and still she is using a separate bag for collection of shit. At the time of accident, the petitioner was studying First Year B.Tech Course and due to prolonged treatment, she could not attend and lost her education. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, liability to pay compensation, and contended that while the bus was coming in slow and caution manner, one lorry which is going in front of the bus was suddenly stopped and the driver of the bus turned the bus to right side and dashed the road sided tamarind tree, and hence, the petitioner sustained injuries. The driver of bus made his best efforts to avoid the accident, but failed beyond his control. The petitioner spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment is not correct and she is put to strict proof of the same. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 3790? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. 9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of driver of the appellant/APSRTC and further, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- towards compensation, though the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability. 10. In the light of above grounds urged in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the appellant/APSRTC? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: The contention of the claimant is that on 23.04.2011, the claimant boarded APSRTC bus of the appellant at Kotha road bus stop to go to college, and while so, at about 09.40 a.m. when the bus was proceeding towards Chittoor on Chittoor – Kadapa high way road, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, when it reached a place near Bangapalli railway gate, and as a result, the bus dashed a tamarind tree located by the side of the road, and as a result, the passengers sustained injuries, and two or three of them died, and the petitioner, who was standing in the bus sustained grievous injuries on the abdomen and became unconscious and shifted to Government Hospital, Chennai, and later to CMC Hospital, Vellore, and the claimant due to injuries on the abdomen, suffered an open wound in the right iliac region of the abdomen with evisceration of bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed ischemic changes and also suffered a fracture of left clavicle, and underwent operation, but bowls were not functioning properly, and she could not pass motion properly, and as a result, a bag is provided for passing of motion, which is called ‘colostomy’, and she has to carry the bag throughout her life, and therefore, she suffered loss of amenities in life, and claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards just compensation, which includes a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenditure, apart from damages for pain and suffering. 12. 12. It is an admitted fact that police registered a case for the offence punishable U/s.304-A, 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the appellant/APSRTC bus, and conducted investigation and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the appellant/APSRTC bus that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 13. The claimant in support of her plea that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., appellant, examined herself as P.W-1, and reiterated the above facts in her chief-examination. The appellant did not elicit any material to say that the accident was occurred as a lorry was stopped suddenly in front of the bus, and that the driver of the bus in order to avoid collision with lorry, turned the bus towards other side and dashed the tamarind tree. The appellant did not examine its driver to speak the way in which the accident was occurred. The claimant filed copy of police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-2; it supports the version of P.W-1 only. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/APSRTC bus. Accordingly, this point is answered. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/APSRTC bus. Accordingly, this point is answered. 14. POINT No.2: The claimant in her evidence deposed that she sustained an open wound in the right iliac region of the abdomen with evisceration of bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed ischemic changes and also sustained a fracture of left clavicle, and she was admitted in CMC, Vellore for 10 days and she underwent operation called Hartmann’s procedure, and on account of the injury, bowls are not functioning properly, and as a result, she could not evacuate motion in normal way, and therefore, a bag was separately inserted for collection of motion, and she has to carry the bag throughout her life and even the second surgery conducted for anastigmatic dehiscence on 17.01.2012 also not solved the problem, and she also joined in CMC Hospital, Vellore, for 21 days in February, 2012 for further treatment, and she has incurred Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment, transportation and medicines etc., which are proved by Ex.A-7 supported by Ex.A-5, Ex.A-6 as well as Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 documents, and further, she was studying B.Tech course at the time of accident and she could not attend college due to the above injuries, and as a result, she could not get marks in first year lab examinations, and also second year internal examinations and therefore, she could not get good percentage of marks in the final year, and lost her bright future and therefore, she claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in all towards compensation. 15. The appellant in her cross-examination did not elicit anything contra. The evidence of the claimant discloses that she was aged 21 years and an engineering student at the time of accident. 16. The claimant in support of her evidence examined Dr.Gayathri Deshpande as P.W-2. 15. The appellant in her cross-examination did not elicit anything contra. The evidence of the claimant discloses that she was aged 21 years and an engineering student at the time of accident. 16. The claimant in support of her evidence examined Dr.Gayathri Deshpande as P.W-2. Her evidence discloses that she is working as Assistant Professor in CMC Hospital, Vellore, and the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 23.04.2011 covered by Exs.X-1 to X-4 discharge summaries, as well as Exs.X-5 to X-9 patient case records, and as per the record of the hospital, the claimant was admitted in their hospital at different spells, and surgeries were conducted and there was an open would in the abdomen and left clavicle fracture. Because of damage caused to the intestines, a separate bag is provided, which is called ‘colostomy’ for passing of motion, and the patient may have to carry the bag throughout her life, and Ex.A-7 bunch of medical bills were issued by their hospital towards expenditure incurred by the patient for the treatment and operations conducted in the hospital. The appellant/APSRTC did not elicit anything during the cross-examination of P.W-2 to discredit the testimony of P.W-2. 17. P.W-2 categorically deposed that during series of operations, they tried to remove the bag, but patient developed complications, and as such, it could not be done, and they are not sure whether the bag can be removed in future even if further treatment is given, and the consolidated bill will be issued at the time of discharge. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-2 corroborates the evidence of P.W-1 about the inconvenience and discomfort faced by the claimant on account of the open would sustained by her on the abdomen, which caused damage to her bowls, which prevented passage of motion normally, and established that the claimant requires a bag throughout her life to pass motion. Admittedly, the claimant is a young girl aged around 22 years and unmarried at the time of accident. The discomfort faced by the claimant would definitely hamper her marriage prospects. She has to suffer lot of inconvenience and discomfort throughout her life. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Unfortunately the appellant/APSRTC is questioning the said amount also, as excessive amount. 18. The discomfort faced by the claimant would definitely hamper her marriage prospects. She has to suffer lot of inconvenience and discomfort throughout her life. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Unfortunately the appellant/APSRTC is questioning the said amount also, as excessive amount. 18. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure head, against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- upon considering Ex.A-7 medical bills produced by the claimant. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damage for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and treatment undergone by her this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 20. In the light of above discussion, the amount of Rs.9,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as excessive, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 . Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award 05.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.32/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Chittoor. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.