Telangana High Court
Kunreddy Anantha Reddy, vs A.P.S.R.T.C. on 19 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1605 of 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 24.03.2016 passed in Original Petition No.235 of 2013 (impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), appellant-claimant preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of 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: Claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 2 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 24.01.2013.
04. According to claimant, on 24.01.2013 at about 03:30 PM., claimant along with his villager Giri Kondal were proceeding towards Thanedarpally Village from Gurrampode Village on the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 P 8689 and when they reached near agricultural land of Yadama Ram Reddy, the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4402 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed their motorcycle resulting which claimant and Giri Kondal fell down and received grievous injuries and other parts of the body and immediately he was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. The Police, Gurrampode registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2013 for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against driver of crime vehicle.
05. As per claimant, he was hale and healthy prior to accident and due to injuries caused in the said accident, 3 he suffered mentally and physically. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of driver of crime vehicle, claimant is entitled for compensation from respondent.
06. Respondent-corporation filed counter denying the averments of the claim application, occurrence of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and that the compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of claim petition.
07. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle?
ii. Whether claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, claimant got examined himself as PW1 and further got examined PW2 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
09. Considering the claim of claimant and counter affidavit filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.39,580/- along with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
10. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellant-claimant has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
11. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for appellant-claimant and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-corporation. Perused the material available on record.
12. The contention of learned counsel for appellant- claimant is that though appellant proved his case by 5 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.
13. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for respondent-corporation contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
14. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellant-claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree?
P O I N T:
15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
16. Claimant was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of claim application. Apart from oral evidence, claimant also relied upon documentary evidence 6 marked under Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Gurrampode registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2013 for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC against driver of crime vehicle and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, Ex.A4-Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle stating that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A2-Medical Certificate, Ex.A3- Discharge card, Ex.A5-Bunch of Medical bills, Ex.A6-X-ray film. PW2-Doctor who treated claimant deposed that PW1 sustained one grievous injury and that he incurred an amount of Rs.24,580/- towards medical bills, transport charges and nourishment. Nothing was elicited during the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, to discard their evidence.
17. 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 crime vehicle. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of 7 the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
18. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded Rs.24,580/- towards medical and other expenses. Further, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards one grievous injury, which are found to be sufficient and held good. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the above quantum of compensation. Now coming to the pain and suffering, it is not in dispute that claimant sustained one grievous injury and the same was proved through the oral and documentary evidence i.e. PW2-Doctor and Ex.A2-Medical certificate. But as seen from the impugned Order, the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under the head pain and suffering. Therefore, claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain 8 and suffering. Further, no compensation amount was awarded towards attendant charges and extra nourishment by the learned Tribunal. Hence, claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all, claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.59,580/-.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.39,580/- has to be enhanced to Rs.59,580/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1 inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The entire compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited by respondent-RTC within a 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 9 period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
20. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.39,580/- to Rs.59,580/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this matter, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 19-NOV-2024 KHRM