Telangana High Court
Duragam Hanumanthu,Anand Rao vs Nagula Durgaiah And Another on 19 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2585 of 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 19.03.2018 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.160 of 2017 by the Additional Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellant- petitioner preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries 2 sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 20.01.2017.
04. According to petitioner, on 13.12.2014 petitioner along with other passengers were proceeding in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No. TS 01 UB 0539 from Gangapur (V) to Kagaznagar, at about 08:45 AM., when the said auto reached near Punjumeraguda bus stage, all of a sudden, one TSRTC bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed, driven by respondent No.1 and dashed the said auto in opposite direction, due to which petitioner sustained injury on left temporal region, left upper eyebrow, multiple injuries all over the body. Petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial for treatment and thereafter he took treatment in private hospitals. The Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2017 for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1-Driver of TSRTC.
05. As per petitioner, he was hale and healthy prior to accident and due to injuries caused in the said accident, 3 he suffered mentally, physically and financially. He was aged about 40 years and doing mason work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of respondent No.1-driver of TSRTC bus, TSRTC is liable to pay compensation to petitioner.
06. Respondent-RTC filed counter denying the averments of the claim application, occurrence of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver and that the compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of claim petition.
08. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident had occurred resulting in injuries to petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 by its driver?
ii. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. TS 01 UB 0539?
iv. To what relief?4
09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent-RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
10. Considering the claim of petitioner and counter affidavit filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 & 2 therein.
11. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellant-petitioner has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
12. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for appellant-petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5
13. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant-petitioner is that though appellant proved his case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation and sought for enhancement of compensation amount.
14. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
15. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellant-petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree dated 19.03.2018 by the learned Tribunal?
P O I N T:
16. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
6
17. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of claim application. Apart from oral evidence, petitioner also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2017 for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1-Driver of TSRTC and took up investigation and after completion of investigation, Ex.A2-Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus stating that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of bus driver. Ex.A4-Registration Certificate of TSRTC bus bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 shows that TSRTC is the owner of the crime bus.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW1, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of bus. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in 7 proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
19. Petitioner has filed Ex.A3-Injury Certificate and Ex.A6-Photo of injuries which discloses that he sustained three simple injuries and as per Ex.A5-Outpatient card petitioner undergone further treatment. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the above injuries of petitioner, has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for injuries and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and amenities and loss of earnings, which is at lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the above quantum of compensation and the same has to be increased. Ex.A3-Injury certificate discloses three simple injuries, therefore, petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/- for each injury which comes to Rs.30,000/-, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- for extra 8 nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferance. Thus, in all, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is increased to Rs.50,000/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the same is held good. The enhanced compensation also shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum. The enhanced compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited by respondents-RTC within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
21. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the 9 compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 19-APR-2024 KHRM 10 11 12 216 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI W MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2585 of 2018 Date: 19-APR-2024 KHRM