Telangana High Court
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Shamita Nagalla And 2 Others on 7 June, 2024
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1131 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji) This appeal has been preferred by the respondent/APSRTC questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation granted in the decree and award dated 27-12-2014, in MVOP No. 406 of 2012 passed by the XXVII Additional chief judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.
2. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the standing counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Mr. A Sudhakar Rao learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Claim petitioner.
3. For the sake of facility, the parties herein after referred to with their rank before theTribunal.
4. The relevant facts in brief are that, on 13.06.2009, while Ms.Shamita Nagalla/petitioner along with her mother was travelling in a Honda city car bearing registration number AP 37 AL 7227 (for short 'the car') near the circle, leading to Prattipadu, a bus of the respondent/APSRTC bearing registration number AP 11 Z 860 (for short the bus) came in rash and 2 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 negligent manner and at high speed abruptly turned the bus without any signal or indicator. In the meantime, the car, which was proceeding straight on highway rammed into the bus, which resulted in grievous injuries to the petitioner and the death of her mother. The police registered a crime and charge sheeted the driver of the bus. Thereupon, the petitioner claiming medical expenditure, future expenses, and other heads filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.90 lakhs. The Tribunal by considering the materials placed on record awarded Rs.72,92,713/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent/APSRTC.
5(a) In appeal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/respondent/APSRTC (hereinafter, 'the respondent') would submit that the Tribunal gravely erred in concluding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances on record. It is evident that the car struck the bus at left rear foot board, while taking turn at Prattipadu Junction. By common knowledge, it can be construed that a vehicle of the size of a bus cannot move at high speed while taking turn. Indeed, the car striking the bus at the rear board is indicating that the bus had almost crossed the road, but the car came in uncontrollable speed and struck the bus and this situation is explicating the negligent driving of the car, rather the bus.
3 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 5(b) Further contended that the presence of eye witness/PW4 is not reflected in the Police record, indicating the chance of planting his presence. Nonetheless, in criminal the case the driver of the bus was acquitted and the judgment in categorical terms recorded that there was no negligence of the driver of the bus in the accident. In addition the driver and conductor of the bus as RWs.1 and 2 deposed that, while the bus negotiating turn, they have taken all possible precautions. The tribunal by considering this material should have held that there was no negligent driving of the bus and exonerated the respondent.
5(c) That apart, the tribunal should have considered the fact that every citizen of USA will have coverage under Health insurance policy, as such, the petitioner would have got reimbursement of the pleaded medical expenditure. The tribunal without evidence and proper deliberation on these aspects granted excess amount towards future medical necessities particularly for correction of disfiguration. Above all, the tribunal had leniently awarded exorbitant amounts under different heads, without substantiating material.
5(d) All things considered, at the best, the Tribunal should have considered contributory negligence at minimum extent on the part of the bus. The Tribunal ought to have considered the settled legal positions 4 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 while awarding compensation in the cases of foreign nationals. Thus, prayed for interference and to exonerate the liability of the respondent.
6. In support to the pleadings, learned senior counsel, cited the authorities (a) United India insurance company Ltd and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan 2002 6 SCC 281 and pleaded that Honourable Supreme Court has clarified in the authority that the exchange rate of dollar against rupee is relevant only for compensation of the amount of loss of dependency and has to scale down the multiplier by considering the economic situation of both the nations. (b) Oriental insurance company Limited v. Deo Patodi and others, 2009 13 SCC 123 to point out that, the deceased though got employment in USA, held that considering the cost/standard of living of the western countries cannot be followed in assessment of income and in case, the victim was earning salary in US dollars, a lower multiplier has to be applied. (c) In Chenderi Devi and another v. Jaspal Singh and others 2015 11 SCC 703 pleaded that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a case of deceased Indian cook who was working in a restaurant in Germany, instead of salary in Euros, by estimating how much a cook of similar nature would have earned in India in the relevant year, fixed monthly income of the deceased. Hence, prayed for, notionally fixing the income in Indian terms to assess the compensation.
5 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 6(a). The counsel for the claim petitioners refuted the contentions raised by the respondent/APSRTC and pleaded that the evidence of the injured witness/PW1 and the eyewitness/PW-2, coupled with the facts elicited in the cross examination of the driver and conductor of the bus/RWs. 1 and 2 are suitably proving the negligent driving of the bus in the accident. Further the judgment of criminal Court is not binding on the tribunal and the fact of negligence and the compensation are to be independently discerned by the materials brought on to record. By these requirements, the tribunal had properly reasoned the evidence in determining the rash and negligent driving of the bus and awarded the compensation. Thus, no merit in the appeal.
6(b). Further, the medical expenditure awarded was the amount actually incurred for treatment in USA and the medical necessities were aptly considered as per the statement of the doctor in granting future medical expenses, and the other amounts awarded are just and reasonable. Therefore, the grounds urged by the respondent in appeal are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.
8. The accident, involvement of the vehicles, injuries to the petitioner and the treatment undergone are not in dispute. Likewise, the manner of 6 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 occurrence, the fact that while the bus was taking turn towards Prattipadu from the Highway, the car crashed into the bus near its rear footboard are in agreement.
9. The counsel for the claim petitioners refuted the contentions raised by the respondent/APSRTC and pleaded that the evidence of the injured witness/PW1 and the eyewitness/PW-2, coupled with the facts elicited in the cross examination of the driver and conductor of the bus/RWs. 1 and 2 are suitably proving the negligent driving of the bus in the accident. Further the judgment of criminal Court is not binding on the tribunal and the fact of negligence and the compensation are to be independently discerned by the materials brought on to record. By these requirements, the tribunal had properly reasoned the evidence in determining the rash and negligent driving of the bus and awarded the compensation. Thus, no merit in the appeal.
10. By the record, it is evident that the accident occurred on the National highway while the bus from its assigned lane on highway, while crossing the roadway of opposite vehicles on the highway to reach the road of Prattipadu, on which the car was proceeding the accident occurred.
11. In this position, the car, which was running on its way on national Highway i.e., the roadway of the opposite lane to the bus, shall have right 7 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015 of way. Therefore, the driver of the bus is endowed with responsibility to take every care and caution while crossing the specified road way of the opposite vehicles, in taking turn, more particularly on the national Highway. It is common knowledge that the national highways are designed for conveyance of vehicles at certain speed. As such, only on confirmation that there are no vehicles on the road way of the opposite lane of the Highways, the driver of the bus should have crossed the road obliging the vehicles right of way on that road.
12. However, the RWs.1 and 2 had categorically stated that, while taking turn the conductor of the bus stood on the front foot board and instructed the driver while taking turn. Nonetheless, in the cross examination admitted that, they did not even observe the car. It is also admitted that the place of occurrence is a national Highway with four lane with heavy traffic.
13. In this admitted position, when the bus has to horizontally cross the road blocking the roadway of the national Highway against the right of way of the vehicles plying on that lane, the level of care, caution and responsibility multiplies on the driver of the bus. But the statement that they did not even observe the car, itself is explaining the Care taken by the driver of the bus, while crossing the National Highway.
8 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015
14. These facts are amply establishing that the driver of the bus failed to take the peremptory care expected from a dutiful driver under the similar circumstances. As the conduct of the driver of the bus lacked reasonable care inexercising the legal duty owed on him to foresee and avert the harm, and in spite of the burden of necessary precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm, as he had acted in breach of his duty of care towards the vehicles plying on their assigned roadway, particularly against the car, it shall be held that, only for the negligent driving of the bus, the accident occurred. As such, the liability of the respondent/APSRTC to make good loss to the petitioners stands established.
15. Viewed from another angle, the appellant has not proposed any act of rashness or negligence on the part of the deceased. Indisputably the deceased was only the occupant of the car. Even if a fraction of rashness or negligence of the driver of the car is taken into account, at the best the accident has to be held as one resulted out of composite negligence of the drivers of bus and the car. Thus, from the point of petitioners/claimants' view, in the case of composite negligence they are legally entitled to claim compensation from either of the vehicles involved in the accident. Therefore the petitioners' claim against the bus for compensation and its liability to pay the compensation are perfectly justified and the respondents cannot claim exception to absolve its liability.
9 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015
16. For the aforesaid, rash and negligent driving of the bus in causing accident, and consequent fastening of the liability against the respondent/APSRTC determined by the tribunal deserves to be and is accordingly affirmed.
17. In regard to the compensation, the Tribunal by considering the treatment undergone and the expenses incurred in India and USA and probable future expenses were awarded at Rs.47,92,713/- in conversion of the amount incurred in terms of U.S. Dollars as per the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.3 and the medical bills/Exs.A.1 to A.13, Exs.A.15 to Ex.A.17. As the expenditure was in U.S.A. in terms of Dollars and as the petitioner is permanent resident of U.S.A. reimbursing the same and her future treatment for fixing disfiguration would also be at her place, granting amount to meet the requirement in the same terms, in Indian currency is found perfectly justified. Further the amounts granted under other heads such as permanent disfiguration, pain and suffering, extra-nourishment and effect on marriage prospects were considered in regular terms. Thus, we find no impropriety or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. That being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In absence of tenable grounds, the appeal fails on merit.
10 PSKJ&NTRJ Macma_1131_2015
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.
_______________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 07.06.2024
skj