HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3936 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 27.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.66 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, whereby a claim of Rs.1,78,600/- was awarded towards total compensation to the claimant, this instant appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the legal validity of the Award passed by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in a Motor Vehicles Road Accident that occurred on 01.05.2009.
2
VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014
4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly stated as follows:-
5. On 01.05.2009, the petitioner was travelling on his motorcycle from his village Peddakoddivandlapalli to Rayachoty, at about 11.30 a.m., when he reached near Malluruvandlapalli Village on Dudyala-Rayachoty road the RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444 belongs to Rayachoty Depot, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained severe grievous injuries. A case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus.
6. The respondent filed a written statement denying the claim of the claimant and pleaded that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the 2 wheeler.
3
VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014
7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: -
1. Whether the petitioner met with road accident and sustained injuries on 01.05.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444 of respondent as pleaded?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?
8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant PWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Ex.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,78,600/- towards total compensation. Aggrieved the same, the A.P.S.R.T.C filed this instant appeal, questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal. 4
VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014
10. Heard Sri K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C and Sri D. Kondanda Ramireddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.
11. Now the point for determination is:
1. Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?
POINT:
12. The case of the claimant is that he is travelling on his motorcycle, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus belongs to Rayachoty Depot, which dashed to his vehicle he fell down and sustained injuries in the said accident. The material on record clearly reveals that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444. The Tribunal also came to a conclusion. I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 5
VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014
13. Coming to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the claimant produced Ex.A.2 certified copy of wound certificate. As per the Ex.A.2, the petitioner sustained five simple injuries and one grievous injury of fracture of right thigh and also relied on discharge summary Ex.A.4 Suraksha Hospital Tirupathi. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of 3rd rib and fracture of right maxilla. As per the C T scan of brain report, the petitioner was found having fracture in the right zygomatic arch posteriorly. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of Dr. B.Hema Kumar Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon, Tirupathi in Suraksha Hospital. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner was admitted as inpatient on 02.05.2009 he was treated till 22.05.2009 and again he came with pain at right hip joint and X-ray was taken and again he was admitted as inpatient on 07.03.2011 and the operation was conducted to him, the screw was also removed on the same day and discharged on 16.03.2011. The evidence of P.W.2, clearly goes to show that the petitioner 6 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014 underwent treatment as inpatient approximately for 30 days. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal also arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is suffering with disability of 10%. Even though the Doctor opined that the disability is of 25%, the Tribunal by assailing reasons arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is suffering with 10% disability and awarded an amount of Rs.57,600/- towards permanent disability (Rs.36,000/- x 10% x 16 = Rs.57,600/-). I do not find any illegality in awarding the said compensation under the head of permanent disability. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards transportation and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges during the period of treatment. On considering the medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment of food.
7
VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014
14. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,78,600/- towards total compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and there is no need to interfere.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
As sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 03.10.2023.
CVD