HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.706 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 1173 of 2017 dated 23.11.2018, the present appeal is filed by the Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Jangaon Bus Depot, Warangal District respectively.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioner, she filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 06.03.2017. On the fateful day, at about 5-00 p.m. she was proceeding on bike bearing No. TS 08 EL 0285 along with her son from Boduppal from Ghatkesar and when she reached Yamnampet X road, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1716 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed her bike, due to which she fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Aditya 2 Hospital, Boduppal by 108 Ambulance for fist aid and later she was shifted to NIMS and admitted as inpatient. She spent more than Rs.7,50,000/- towards her medical expenses. According to the petitioner, she was doing tailoring and embroidery work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondents jointly and severally.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 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 her. 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 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Ex.X1. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and no document was marked.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,031,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally and the petition was dismissed against the respondent No.3.
3
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 29 Z 1716 without there being any acceptable evidence on record and that the tribunal erred in considering the disability as 30% even though the disability certificate is not issued by the Medical board and that the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month even though injured is a house wife and non-earning person and therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed by the tribunal.
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.
9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, as there is no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the Insurance Company to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary 4 evidence produced by her, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 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, she sustained grievous injuries and fractures in the said accident and due to the above injuries, she became permanently disabled and lost her earning capacity. In order to prove her case, she examined PWs.2 to 6. PW-2 Orthopedic Consultant in Aditya Hospital, Uppal, who deposed that PW-1 sustained i) fracture of both bones of left leg, ii) fracture of both bones of right lower limb, iii) degloving injury on left leg and iv) fracture of ankle joint, which are grievous in nature. He further deposed that PW-1 required second surgery after one and half to two years to remove the foreign body material like stainless steel implants which costs about Rs.70,000/-. She is suffering with permanent partial disability with knee stiffness and ankle stiffness of 30% to 40%.
11. PW-3 Plastic Surgeon, Head of the Department in NIMS deposed about the treatment taken by PW-1 in their hospital. He further deposed that PW-1 joined in their hospital on 18.3.2017 and was discharged on 25.3.2017 and again she admitted on 20.4.2017 for skin grafting and was 5 discharged on 23.5.2017. PW-4 Orthopedic Surgeon and Faculty in Department of Orthopedics in NIMS stated that PW-1 came to him for disability certificate on 1.6.2018 and that on examination, he found that she is suffering with post operative status of bilateral ankle injuries viz., compound fracture dislocation right ankle and compound fracture of both bones left leg distal 3rd bilateral SSG ankles with post traumatic stiffness. She has permanent partial disability of 30% in both lower limbs. Ex.A11 disability certified was issued by him.
12. PW.5 Billing Manager in Aditya Hospital deposed that PW-1 paid an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- by way of cash. PW-6 Billing Manager/Assistant Registrar, NIMS deposed that the petitioner paid Rs.84,289/-. According to the petitioner, she was aged 45 years and was a house wife. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the tribunal fixed the disability of PW-1 at 30% and by considering the services of PW-1 as house wife, the tribunal has taken her income at Rs.3,000/-, added 25% towards future prospects and by applying multiplier '14', an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- is awarded towards 30% disability sustained by her. Further considering the nature of injuries sustained by her and the treatment taken by her, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,19,289/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.15,000/- 6 towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.70,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,03,000/- under various heads, which is just and reasonable. 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.
13. 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