Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs Panthini Sridhar Rao on 11 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2164 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant-TSRTC (prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC) being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2016 passed in O.P No.89 of 2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 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 petitioners, who are the husband and children of the deceased-Panthini Premalatha had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with costs and interest on account of the death of the deceased- Premalatha, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.12.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on 06.12.2014 at about 11.00 AM, when the deceased, who is a pillion rider on the motor cycle along with her sister Ms.T.Poornima, who was riding the Pleasure two wheeler bearing No.AP-20R-3184 from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when reached N.G.R.I Gate, Habsiguda at about 11.30 AM, one 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the said Pleasure two wheeler motor cycle from the backside. As a result, the persons present on the said two wheeler, fell down on the road and received serious injuries and fractures. Immediately, they were shifted to Whitus Hospital at Habsiguda and the doctors gave First Aid and as the deceased sustained grievous injuries, she was referred to Yashoda Hospital at Secunderabad. The deceased was admitted as inpatient in the said hospital on the same day and while undergoing treatment, she died on 17.12.2014 at about 10.08 AM due to grievous injuries and fractures sustained by her in vital parts of the body. Later, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad for conducting post-mortem examination. The P.S., Osmania University, registered a case in Crime No.440 of 2014 for the offence under Section 337 IPC. It was submitted by the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 33 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by giving tuitions to the upper primary school students and used to contribute the same for maintenance of her family. It is further stated by the petitioners that the deceased was preparing for groups and DSC 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 as she studied Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Education, Master of Business Administration and she has also qualified in APTET in July 2011 and if she is alive, she would have got Government job and would have provided better amenities to the petitioners. As the deceased was no more, the petitioners, with a great hardship, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent- Corporation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-RTC filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, manner in which the accident occurred, denied the age, occupation, income and health condition of the deceased and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased by name P.Premalatha died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1039?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?4
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
3. To what relief ?
6. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A17 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.17,45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization which is payable by the respondent-TSRTC within one month from the date of order.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-TSRTC filed the present Appeal.
9. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant- TSRTC and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039; erred in assessing the 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 income of the deceased without proper evidence; erred in awarding compensation towards Medicines and Investigations and also failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as necessary parties to the petition and hence awarded excess and exorbitant compensation.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable compensation for which the interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the points that arise for determination are,
1. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. PW1, who is the husband of the deceased, reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and deposed that on 06.12.2014, at about 11.00 AM, when his wife along with her sister T.Poornima were going on Pleasure two wheeler from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when they reached near NGRI Gate, Habsiguda at about 11.30 AM, 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came from backside in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed their two wheeler vehicle. As a result, they both fell down and sustained grievous injuries and fractures and the vehicle was also damaged. The deceased died while undergoing treatment at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. Due to the said accident, police, Osmania University, registered a case in Crime No.440 of 2014 against the driver of the said RTC bus for his rash and negligent driving.
14. It is also pertinent to mention that PW2, who is not only an eye witness to the accident, but also a victim in the accident, stated in her evidence that when she, along with her sister -
deceased Premalatha were going on their Pleasure two wheeler motor cycle from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when reached Habsiguda NGRI gate at about 11.30 AM, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z1039 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed their two wheeler from backside. As a result, they both sustained grievous injuries and fractures and were shifted to Whitus Hospital, Habsiguda and later, after rendering first aid, as her sister condition was serious, she was referred to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. Due to multiple 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 injuries and fractures caused to the internal parts of the body, her sister died on 17.12.2014. She firmly deposed that the death of her sister occurred only due to the internal injuries and multiple injuries and fractures sustained by her in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039. Exs.A1 to A17 support the contention of PW2. Ex.A1-Copy of FIR shows that a case has been registered in Crime NO.440 of 2014 by the P.S., Osmania University against the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z1039. Exs.A4 & A5 shows that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Ex.A6 is the copy of charge sheet which shows that the police, after thorough investigation, had laid charge sheet against the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039. So, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A7, it is clear that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRC Bus which resulted in the death of the deceased-Premalatha. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no negligence on part of 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017 the driver of the said RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 is unsustainable.
15. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to awarding compensation towards Medicines and Investigations. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the evidence of PW3, who is a Resident Medical Officer of Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and who stated in his evidence that the deceased Premalatha was admitted in their Hospital on 06.12.2014 pertaining to a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.12.2014. Upon examination by him, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgeries to that effect which are mentioned as under :-
Injuries sustained by the deceased:-
1. RTA with poly trauma
2. Pelvic fracture with right iliac wing fracture, right superior and inferior pubicf rami frcture right sacrum fracture.
3. Crush avulsion injury around pelvis with degloving injury of skin.
4. Left anterior abdominal wall selulities with sepsis.
Surgeries undergone by the deceased:-
1. Debridement plus haemostasis under general anesthesia on 06.12.2014.
2. Debridement under general anesthesia on 08.12.2014. 9
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
3. Debridement plus SSG under General Anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
4. Orif right iliac wing under general anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
16. PW3 also stated in his evidence that though the deceased was treated with utmost care and caution, they could not save her life and hence, she was died on 17.12.2014 at 10.06 A.M. He stated that the deceased incurred an amount of Rs.5,21,650/- towards her treatment in the said hospital. Ex.A8 is the Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.5,20,000/- . PW4 who is an Accounts Manager in the said hospital, also stated that the deceased spent an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards her treatment. Therefore, the evidence of PWs3 & 4 along with Ex.A8 shows that the deceased incurred an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards medical expenses and the learned Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- towards medicines and investigations for which interference of this Court is not necessary. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel the appellant that the tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards medicines and investigations is unsustainable.
10
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
17. The other contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties to the petition. In this regard, it is apt to mention that the petitioners have adduced sufficient evidence and filed ample documents in support of their contentions and it is the case of RTC to prove that there was no contributory negligence on part of the said RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1039. But no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on their behalf to disprove their negligence and mere non-examination of owner and insurer of the said two wheeler will not disentitle the appellant-RTC to pay compensation to the petitioners.
18. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available, has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-1039 and granted a reasonable compensation. This Court does not feel to interfere with the said findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs. 11
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
20. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.11.01.2024 ysk