HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2671 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 01.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.515 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2004 while the petitioner was proceeding on his cycle, at about 01:20 PM, when he reached near OCP-IV cross road, the offending bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-4281 belonging to second respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioners cycle, caused him grievous injuries. The Police, Ramagundam registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet. Immediately, after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Area Hospital, Godavarikhani and there from he was referred to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment 2 NBK, J MACMA_2671_2008 as in-patient from 12.05.2004 to 15.05.2004 and thereafter he was admitted in Med Bone Hospital, Godavarikhani where he underwent treatment as in-patient for 14 days. He had incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment. The petitioner was earning Rs.18,725/- per month, which he had lost on account of disability sustained by him in the accident in question.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter contending that the petitioners was put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the claim-petition and denied the manner in which the accident took place and also the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-4281 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?3
NBK, J MACMA_2671_2008
6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12, Ex.X-1 and Ex.X-2. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the APSRTC was responsible for the accident causing injuries to the petitioner in the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,68,013/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the respondent has filed the present appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the bus at fault, taking the disability at 100%.
10. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the 4 NBK, J MACMA_2671_2008 driver of the APSRTC. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-2, though he denied that he is fault for occurrence of the accident but, during the course of cross examination he admitted that he committed the said offence in the Court. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus.
11. The further contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that though the PW-3/Medical Officer opined the disability only to the extent of 40% to 50% but, the tribunal erred in fixing the disability at 100%. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW-3 with regard to the evidence of disability to the extent of 40% to 50% but, while coming to the evidence of PW-2 who is the welfare officer of the S.C.C.L, Godavarikhani, it is clearly evident that the petitioner was removed from the service on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the view adopted by the learned tribunal on this aspect holds goods and warrants no interference. 5
NBK, J MACMA_2671_2008
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award and decree dated 01.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.515 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (District Judge), Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 29.09.2023 VRKS 6 NBK, J MACMA_2671_2008 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.2671 OF 2008 29.09.2023 VRKS