Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Rep. By Its Managing Director, vs S. Suryanarayana Murthy on 2 May, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.384 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1726 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 02.06.2015, while the petitioner was proceeding in an APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02Z-0281 from Hyderabad towards Tadipatri and when the bus reached near Komireddypally Village limits, the driver of the said bus has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and thereby lost control over the vehicle, and thus the bus turned turtle, due to which the petitioner received grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Addakala and later on to Sun Shine Hospital and that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 2
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, occupation and income of petitioner. They further contended that the bus driver was going cautiously, but at that time two Volvo Buses over took the said vehicle and the second vehicle took a left cut to avoid collusion with opposite vehicle and on observing the same, the bus driver has applied sudden break and took the bus to his extreme left to prevent major accident and thus, the bus went into contact with the stones and turned turtle and that their driver was not negligent in causing the accident.
5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S. Suryanarayana Murthy, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-
02Z-0281, by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief ?
6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8, X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.
ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 3
7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,08,157/- @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the APSRTC.
8. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant counsel has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and that they have granted excess amounts and the learned Tribunal failed to observe that the accident occurred in 2015, while petitioner says that he has taken treatment in 2017 after being silent for two years. Thus, the case of the petitioner is false and that he incurred huge medical expenses and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, but has awarded exorbitant compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner was a passenger in the bus and in his claim petition itself, he has clearly mentioned that he is a poor person and when he was immediately shifted to the hospital, on coming to know about the estimated medical expenses, he could not afford to undergo treatment and thus, he was confined to bed at home and after pulling up his resources, he underwent ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 4 treatment in the year 2017. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same.
11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:-
1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-02Z- 0281?
2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?
4. To what relief?
12. Point No.1:
a) PW1 is the injured-petitioner; his evidence reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the RTC Bus driver in which he was travelling as a passenger. Nothing much could be elicited during his cross examination to discredit his evidence with regard to the occurrence of the accident.
b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and the charge sheet under Ex.A3 reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus driver. The contents of the charge sheet reveal that the driver of the RTC Bus has driven the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control on the bus and that the bus turned turtle. Therefore, based on the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and A3, it is held that the ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 5 accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus.
Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.2:-
a) The case of PW1 is that he sustained fracture of right hip, fracture of knee joint and blunt injury on left hand as a result of the accident, that he was working as Manager in Viscot Surgical Private Limited, he was aged 67 years and was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month and that he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He got examined PW3 and PW4 to prove the injuries and the treatment.
b) PW3/Dr. G. Vijay Kumar is an Orthopaedic Consultant, his evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained injury in the right hip joint, while he was travelling in RTC Bus on 02.06.2015 at about 12:30 a.m., and that he was taken to the Government Hospital initially, but he was advised to go to Sun Shine Hospital.
As he was supposed to undergo major surgeries, Sun Shine Hospital gave an estimation of Rs.3,50,000/- which he could not afford at that time. Thus, he continued to remain at home for more than one and half years and he approached PW3 in April, 2017, whereby he was admitted at Aditya Hospital, Boggulakunta and ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 6 that he was diagnosed for a grossly comminuted neglected fracture with non-union troshanture on 12.04.2017 and that the PW1 underwent surgery on 19.04.2017 and was discharged on 24.04.2017 with an advise for follow up treatment at regular intervals. He also has spoken with regard to the disability saying that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability which is permanent in nature. Mere suggestions were given to him during cross examination which were denied by him and nothing material could be elicited to discredit his evidence.
c) PW4 is the Billing Manager of Aditya Hospital and his evidence reveals that the petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.2,35,157/-. He further deposed that Ex.A6/medical bill was issued by their hospital. A perusal of Ex.A2/Wound Certificate dated 02.06.2015 issued by the Medical Officer of Mahaboobnagar District, shows that there were two abrasions and that the patient was referred to OGH, Hyderabad. The check out slip under Ex.A5 pertaining to Sun Shine Hospital reveals that the petitioner was kept in the Casuality Ward, Department of Orthopaedics and was discharged on 02.06.2015. Ex.A6 is the outpatient card of Sun Shine Hospital and the Registration date is shown as 02.06.2015 i.e., the date of the accident. He was diagnosed with fracture of right femur neck. A bunch of medical bills are filed under Ex.A5 ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 7 pertaining to Sun Shine Hospital and it also reveals that the patient was discharged on the same day i.e., on 02.06.2015. Thus, it is revealed from the record that initially he was taken to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where after first aid, he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, but the petitioner visited Sun Shine Hospital, where he was diagnosed with fracture of right femur, but he got discharged on the same day without taking any treatment. This probabilizes the case of the petitioner that he could not afford for the medical expenditure at that point of time and thus, he returned home and after accumulating funds, he again approached Aditya Hospital for treatment. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by the Aditya Hospital, which reveals that the petitioner underwent inpatient treatment from 12.04.2017 to 24.04.2017 for non-union comminuted fracture.
d) A perusal of medical bills under Ex.A5 shows that he paid a total bill of Rs.2,35,157/- at Aditya Hospital apart from incurring other medical expenses for purchase of medicines which are filed as a bunch under Ex.A5. The contention of the appellant counsel that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding medical expenses of Rs.2,35,157/- appears to be untenable, in view of the medical bills filed under Ex.A5.
ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 8
e) For pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable.
f) The appellant's further contention is that the salary of the petitioner is believed as Rs.16,000/- by the Tribunal and it went ahead in awarding loss of salary for three months which is calculated as Rs.48,000/-. To prove the salary of the petitioner, he filed Ex.A7 issued by Viscot Surgical. It is the contention of the petitioner that he used to work as a Manager in Viscot Surgical and used to earn Rs.16,000/- per month.
g) To prove Ex.A7, the petitioner got examined PW2. The evidence of PW2 reveals that the petitioner was working with them as a Manager and that they used to pay Rs.16,000/- per month as a salary. The Ex.X1 and X2 are filed in his evidence. Ex.X1 is the Attested Copy of Attendance Register of their Company and X2 is the Attested Copies of payment vouchers. Further, he asserted that PW2 has issued Ex.A7 and a suggestion was given to him in cross examination saying that the petitioner being senior citizen was not supposed to be offered employment in their company, which was denied by him. But it is a Private Company as deposed by PW2 and the Letter Head of Ex.A7 also shows that it is Viscot Surgical Private Limited and the documents under Ex.X1, X2 and A7 prove the earnings of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- per month. Thus, the ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021 9 Tribunal has assessed loss of earnings for three months and granted Rs.48,000/- which is also not found fault with. Thus, it is opined that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.3:-
In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.4:-
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 11.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1726 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 02.05.2025 ds