Apsrtc, Amaravathi vs M Prem Kumar, Chittoor Dist 1 Other
2022 Latest Caselaw 1736 AP

          THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1032 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the award and decree dated 02.01.2017 passed

in M.V.O.P.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District

Judge, Chittoor (for short "the Tribunal"), the present appeal is

preferred by the 1st respondent in the O.P. i.e., the APSRTC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter

be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

3. The facts of the case are that on the fateful day i.e.,

23.08.2014 at about 3.15 p.m., the petitioner went to P.Kothakota

on his motor cycle and while he was returning to his home,

proceeding in front of Puthalapattu bus stop, the crime Vehicle

APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 03 Z 5163 driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the left side of the

motor cycle. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and

sustained fracture injury on his right leg. Immediately the

petitioner shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. Later, the

petitioner was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better

treatment and later he was shifted to Sai Balaji Hospital, Chittoor.

A case in crime No.150 of 2014 was registered under Section 337

IPC by Puthalapattu police station against the driver of the crime

vehicle. Further, the petitioner incurred huge expenses towards

treatment and medicines. Further, the petitioner right leg was

amputated low knee joint and hence he has become permanently

disabled person. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay

the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte.

5. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying all the

averments made in the petition and contended that the claim of the

petitioner is very high and excessive and without any basis. Further, it

is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner ought to have

added the insurer and insured of the motor cycle of the petitioner and

hence the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the

petitioner has not proved his income. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for enquiry:

1) Whether the accident in question caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03 Z/5163 of the petitioner himself drove his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AD 42?

2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3) To what relief?

7. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10

and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked on behalf of the claimant/petitioner

and no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on

behalf of the respondents.

8. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the

oral documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of

Rs.6,30,073/- to the claimant against the respondents together with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred

by the 1st respondent-APSRTC.

9. Heard the arguments of learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC

appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/claimants.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the

order of the tribunal is contrary to law and weigh of evidence and

probabilities of the case and the tribunal ought to have seen that there

was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. He

submits that the tribunal ought to have held that the accident was

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motor

cycle and the tribunal ought to have failed to see that the non joinder of

proper and necessary parties i.e., owner and the insurer of the motor

cycle as respondents. Hence, the OP is not maintainable. He further

submits that the tribunal erred in holding that the respondent-claimant

might have incurred some expenses towards transportation, extra

nourishment, clothes and articles and awarded Rs.10,000/-,

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively under these heads and also

failed to examine the persons who issued Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 bills.

However, the tribunal erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.1,09,673/-

towards medicines and treatment.

11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the tribunal

ought to have held that the respondent-claimant has not marked any

documents to prove the income, the tribunal erroneously fixed the

income of the unskilled labour at Rs.3500/- per month. The tribunal

ought not to have relied upon the Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 disability

certificates issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore and medical board. In fact

the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 nowhere stated that due to the injuries

sustained by the claimant is suffering 70% permanent disability and

there is no basis to assess the disability. He further submits that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is an excessive and which is

contrary to the principles of law. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent mainly argued that the

tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence awarded compensation and

there is no illegality in the order of the tribunal and hence prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

submissions made by both the learned counsels and on verifying the

entire material on record i.e., the evidences recorded and relying on the

documents, it reveal that no need to interfere in the award passed by

the tribunal. Hence, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has rightly

awarded Rs.6,30,073/- as compensation together with interest @ 7.5%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which was based on

a proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, the same warrants no

interference from this Court.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

order dated 02.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.101 of 2015 on the

file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

order as to costs.

___________________________ Dr. K.MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 11 .04.2022 Gvl

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No.1032 OF 2017

11 .04.2022

Gvl