Telangana High Court
G Ashok , Ashok Kumar, Nalgonda Town And ... vs Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad on 2 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1776 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act -cum- Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.996 of 2012, dated 14.07.2015, the appellant/claim petitioner filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a resident of Thungapahad Village, Nalgonda District and on 29.09.2012, at about 3.30p.m., when the petitioner was going to Thungapahad Village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24C 4741 along with his friend Sri T.Guravaiah as a pillion rider in order to collect mechanical charges from one Ramanuja Reddy and when going in a moderate speed, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 came in 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017 opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's motor cycle near Earanna Kalva. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as well as simple injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Miryalguda and later admitted in Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad and underwent treatment from 20.09.2012 to 04.10.2012 and again got treated by Dr.Shankar Naik at Miryalguda, who fixed rods for the fracture injuries. The petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, etc. Based on a complaint, P.S., Tripuraram, registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of APSRTC Bus. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he was hale and healthy and was doing mechanical works and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the doctor advised him to take rest for one year and therefore, he sustained loss of nearly Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
4. The respondent-RTC filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, employment of the petitioner, narration of the accident, involvement of the petitioner in the accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the petitioner at the time of accident and that the amount claimed is 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017 excessive and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it. It also contended that as the petition suffers defect of non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle, the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. On behalf of the claimant in O.P., PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on their behalf.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record and perusing the entire documents, had allowed the claim petition of the petitioner by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount which shall be deposited by the respondent within two months from the date of order.
7. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner in O.P. filed the present Appeal along with a petition seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide I.A.No.2 of 2017 (M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3261 of 2017). 4
MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017
8. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for Appellant as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondent-RTC. Perused the record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant is that though the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,09,204/-, but had awarded only a sum of Rs.8,00,000 which is meager to the pain and suffering suffered by the petitioner. He also stated that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 9% instead of 8% and hence prayed to allow the application filed for enhancement of compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-RTC contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced and documents filed has awarded reasonable compensation for interference of this Court is not necessary.
11. Now the points that arise for determination are, Whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal? POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. The petitioner himself was examined as PW1. 5
MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017 He reiterated the contents made in his claim application and in support of his contentions, he got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Ex.A1-FIR shows that Tripuraram police registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against the respondent for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 which came in a high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. The police, after conducting thorough investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 which itself established that the driver of the RTC Bus was responsible for the accident. As there is no negligence on part of the driver of the motorcycle, the insurer of the said motorcycle is not made as a party to the petition. Further, in the said accident, the appellant sustained compound fracture of right ankle and right leg, injury on head. PWs 2 to 5 are the Doctors who treated the appellant and their evidence is supported by the evidence of PW1. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by PW5, who is a Civil Surgeon and also a Member of District Medical Board, Nalgonda assessing the disability sustained by the petitioner at 70%. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 also discloses about the admissions of PW1 in their hospital, treatment given by them to the injury suffered by him, operations conducted for removal of right leg below knee and the expenditure incurred by PW1 in connection with his treatment. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017 evidence and documents marked, has rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0019.
13. Coming to the aspect of awarding of compensation to the appellant, the learned Tribunal after considering the age, avocation and monthly income of injured, applied multiplier '18' and assessed the loss of earning capacity as Rs.7,56,000/-. It also awarded Rs.2,53,204/- towards medical bills incurred by the appellant as per Ex.A4. Hence arrived at a total compensation of Rs.9,09,204/-. But since the claim application filed by the petitioner is for Rs.8,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal limited its compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. But, as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another 1, the Hon'ble Court had categorically stated that there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.
14. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,09,204/- . The appellant shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount. The respondent-RTC is directed to deposit the 1 (2011) 10 SCC 756 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1776 of 2017 enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.02.02.2024 ysk