HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1595 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge- cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 2261 of 2008 dated 30.06.2016, the present appeal is filed by the Appellants/Respondents, who are the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad-2 Depot and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation respectively.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioner, he filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 26.6.2008. On the fateful day, he started from R.C.I. gate and proceeding towards Srisailam in an auto bearing No. AP 29 U 2476 and on the way at about 8-30 p.m. when he reached near Devendrapuram Vidyalaya, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5903 belongs to Hyderabad-2 Depot came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high 2 speed and dashed against his auto, as a result, he sustained fracture of right patella, dislocation of right knee joint, fracture of left styloid radius, fracture of left wrist, grievous injury to both ears and other serious injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and admitted as inpatient. According to the petitioner, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, earning Rs.5,000/- per month as an auto driver. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he underwent operation and spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards treatment, medicines, transportation etc., apart from extra nourishment and he became permanently disabled and unfit for driving and lost his earning capacity. Thus the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2.
4. Respondents filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries and the treatment taken by him. It is further contended that the compensation amount granted is highly excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked. 3
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,11,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondents jointly and severally.
7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation submitted that the tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5903 without there being any acceptable evidence on record and that the tribunal erred in considering the income of the injured at Rs.48,000/- per annum even though the petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and that the tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability of the injured as 100% though PW-2 assessed the disability at 35%.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
9. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1989. But the tribunal without assigning any reason framed issue under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and decided the issue in favour of the petitioner. However, based on the evidence on record, the Court can consider Section 166 instead of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela and others vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:
" Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."
In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal has framed issue on rash and negligence under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightly settled the 1 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 issue in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioner he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. In order to prove his case, he examined PW-2 Orthopedic Surgeon, who deposed that PW-1 came to him with injuries viz., 1) fracture patella right and 2) fracture of radius left, which are grievous in nature. He further deposed that Pw-1 cannot walk, sit and squat properly and he assessed the disability at 35 percent which is partial and permanent in nature and he cannot discharge his duties as auto driver and issued Ex.A3 certificate to that effect. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor who treated the petitioner. Therefore, the tribunal considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly taken the functional disability at 100% and fixed the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying multiplier '17' awarded an amount of Rs.8,16,000/- towards loss of future earnings. Further tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded an amount 6 of Rs.9,11,000/- under various heads. Further the petitioner has not filed any appeal or cross objections and not disputed the amount awarded by the tribunal. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the tribunal has rightly awarded the reasonable compensation with well reasoned calculation. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 14.03.2023.
pgp