THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 4089 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (presently, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), aggrieved of the order and decree dated 28.05.2013 in M.V.O.P. No. 109 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.
2. For the injuries suffered by the claimant-respondent herein in the accident occurred on 09.01.2012, involving the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5425, owned by appellants-RTC, the claimant, aged about 11 years, filed the O.P. claiming the compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs.
3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, allowed the O.P. in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be paid by the appellants-RTC within one month from the date of said order. Complaining that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, the RTC has filed this appeal.
2
GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants- RTC and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-RTC contends inter alia that the tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In fact, due to the negligence on the part of the claimant while riding the bicycle, the accident took place. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have apportioned the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant while determining the compensation of amount. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended that considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is on higher side and needs to be reduced.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondent, has contended that the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the clamant, is reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. 3
GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014
7. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-RTC that only due to the rash and negligent riding of the bicycle by the claimant, the accident took place and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. As seen from the record, although the appellants-RTC contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and it is only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant in riding bicycle, they did not adduce any evidence in this regard before the tribunal. In fact, P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, categorically deposed that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the accident took place. The appellants-RTC did not choose to examine the driver of the bus to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In such circumstances, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.2, copies of FIR and charge sheet, the tribunal has rightly held that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is on record that the claimant had suffered three grievous injuries such as (i) crush injury of right hand with loss of skin on right palm; (ii) distal 3rd of right forearm and write exposing tendance and vessels; and (iii) right ulnar arterm is cut. Even according to the evidence of treating doctor, P.W.3, the claimant was treated as 4 GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014 inpatient in Osmania General Hospital from 17.07.2011 to 20.08.2011 and that the claimant also underwent surgery on 29.07.2011. He specifically deposed that the injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature. In such circumstances, the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. The appellants-RTC have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined disturb the just compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 109 of 2012, dated 28.05.2013. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 01.07.2022 tsr 5 GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A. No. 4089 of 2014 DATE: 01-07-2022