Telangana High Court
Smt. Gaddi Oddemma vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1013 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nizamabad, in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2016, dated 11.12.2017, the appellant/claim petitioner preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.11.2015. As per the claim petitioner, on 17.11.2015 at about 6.00 hours at Station road, Nizamabad, while the petitioner was discharging her duty of cleaning and sweeping the road, at that time one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-1918 came from her behind driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and the Bus ran over her left leg, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture and crush injury over her left leg, amputation of left leg below the knee, injuries on right leg, 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018 right knee, hands and head injury. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital Nizamabad, from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where she was treated as inpatient from 18.11.2015 to 09.12.2015 and she underwent operation on 28.11.2015 for amputation of her left leg below the knee. She further contended that she incurred Rs.2,00,000 for her medical expenses and due to the said injury, she became permanently disabled and lost her earning capacity. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents.
4. Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the claim petitioner alone is responsible for the alleged incident and that there is no rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the RTC Bus and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the motor accident with the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-1918 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?3
MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018
6. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner herself was examined as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1 on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.4,49,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-RTC.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the claim petitioner had proved her case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and by relying upon Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same had awarded meagre amount and prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent- RTC argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018 aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. The claimant as PW1 has reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident and also injuries sustained by her and amputation done to her left leg below knee. In order to prove the same, she got examined PW2. PW2, who is working as CMO in Gandhi Hospital, deposed that on 18.11.2015, PW1 was admitted in the Hospital for the injuries sustained to her in a road traffic accident. On examination, it is found that there was a crush injury of her left foot.
13. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that the entire treatment was done under Arogyasri Scheme at free of cost and also accepted that there is no mention of disability in Ex.A5 and Ex.C1 and denied the other suggestions.
14. Though PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence. 5
MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018
15. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the RTC Bus was examined. RW1, in his evidence has stated that on the date of accident i.e., on 17.11.2015 at about 6.00 AM, he was driving the Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-1918 on the Station Road, Nizamabad slowly and consciously and due to sudden attempt by the appellant to cross the road, the accident occurred and it was due to carelessness of the appellant and that there is no rash and negligence on his side and the petitioner herself is responsible for the accident.
16. In the cross-examination, he admitted that police filed criminal case against him and he faced departmental enquiry and denied the other suggestions.
17. It is pertinent to state that RW1, being the driver, obviously will not accept his fault. However, he has not taken any steps to give complaint in the police station if at all there is no negligence on his part. Furthermore, Police, after thorough investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC i.e., RW1. Under these circumstances, the evidence of RW1 holds no water.
18. It is pertinent to state that the claim petitioner, apart from adducing cogent and convincing evidence, also relied upon documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that based on a complaint, the Nizamabad I Town Police 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018 Station have registered a case in Crime No.409 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC, took up investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A3 against the driver of the RTC Bus. Ex.A4 is the injury certificate which discloses the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner. Ex.A5 is the photo of the petitioner showing the amputation of her left leg. Ex.A6 is the X-ray. Ex.C1 is the case sheet which discloses that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 18.11.2015 and underwent surgery on 28.11.2015 and was discharged on 09.12.2015 with crush injury. Therefore, from the above documents, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and the petitioner had sustained injuries and undergone treatment. Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.
19. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal by taking into consideration the age and avocation of the appellant, fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/-. As the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 60 years and as she suffered with 60% disability, this Court is inclined to add 10% towards future prospects to the established income of the appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018 others 1. Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,500/-. Since the appellant was 60 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. As per the evidence of PW2, the disability sustained by the appellant is 60%. Therefore, the total loss of income incurred by the appellant due to said disability comes to Rs.3,56,400/-(Rs.5,500 x 12 x 9 x 60%). Also, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the period of treatment, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,81,400/-.
20. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,49,400/- to Rs.4,81,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.1013 of 2018 entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.13.02.2024 ysk