Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Depot Mgr, ... vs Palagara Srikanth, Vizianagaram ... on 2 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.43 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the award and decree dated 28.09.2016 passed
in M.O.P.No.204 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District
Judge, Vizianagaram (for short "the Tribunal"), the present appeal
is preferred by the 2nd and 3rd respondents 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 10.09.2014m at about
6.00 p.m., the petitioner while proceeding on left side towards R &
B Junction, at the same time, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 35
Z 0056 driven by the 1st respondent-driver of the bus drove it in a
rash and negligent manner without blowing horn or following
traffic rules, and dashed the petitioner, as a result of which, the
petitioner fell down and sustained simple and grievous injuries.
Immediately, he was shifted to District Hospital, Vizianagaram,
wherein the doctors done first aid and referred him to Care
Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment, where the doctors
found multiple fractures on right leg and other injuries all over the
body and he went several operations and discharged him with
advice to take further treatment. He was quite hale and healthy
by the date of accident and used to attend labour works and earn
Rs.200/- per day and after the accident he was unable to attend
his labour works. The petitioner incurred huge amounts for
transport to Hospital, medicines and extra nourishment. The
accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the bus. The Station House Officer, Traffic Police
Station, Vizianagaram registered a case in Crime No.146 of 2014
under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the bus-1st
respondent. The petitioner is aged about 19 years and studying
intermediate and he lost all the amenities, fruits and pleasure of
life. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.
5. The 3rd respondent filed written statement which was adopted
by the 2nd respondent by filing a Memo denying the allegations in the
petition and contending that these respondents are no way concerned
with the accident and the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and
the petitioner did not file any document showing the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The offending
vehicle was valid driving licence by the time of accident and hence if any
compensation is awarded it is for the 3rd respondent to pay the same
and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been
settled for trial:
1) Whether the motor vehicle accident took place on 10.09.2014
at about 6.10 hours near R & B Junction, Vizianagaram, due
to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 35
Z 0056 by its driver, resulting injuries caused to the
petitioner?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what
amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner examined,
himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor who treated him as
P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and on behalf of the respondents,
none were examined and no documents are marked.
8. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the
oral documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of
Rs.1,02,000/- to the claimant against the respondents no.1 to 3 jointly
and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has
been preferred by the 2nd and 3rd respondents-APSRTC.
9. Heard the arguments of Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned
Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the appellants and Ms.
Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants argued that the
tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the claimant failed to
establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver of
the bus bearing No.AP 35Z 0056 which occurred on 10.09.2014 and
also the tribunal committed a serious illegality in holding that the rash
and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver caused on the part of
the bus driver caused the accident in fact the 1st respondent driving the
motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 A 2843 in a rash and negligent manner
without observing traffic on the road the traffic regulations and met
with accident and received injuries and there is no negligence on the
part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. He also argued that the tribunal
ought to have taken into consideration the contributory negligence on
the part of the 1st respondent driving the motor cycle without ob serving
traffic rules and regulations and there is no negligence on the part of
the RTC bus driver. He further argued that the tribunal has erred in
law in not considering that the driver of the motor cycle is not having
valid driving licence and the motor cycle is not insured and also erred in
taking the age of the injured as 15 to 20 years without any valid
documentary proof. He mainly contends that the tribunal has erred in
law in applying multiplier 15 while awarding compensation in the case
of injuries. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents 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.
12. 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.1,02,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, which was
based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, the same
warrants no interference from this Court.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the
order dated 28.09.2016 passed in M.O.P.No.204 of 2015 on the file of
the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
order as to costs.
___________________________
Dr. K.MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 02.03.2022
Gvl
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.43 OF 2017
.03.2022
Gvl
