Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad vs Kuppala Mallikarjun Malli, ... on 17 October, 2022
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 1 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.231 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC,
challenging the award dated 25.07.2013 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.24/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal while
partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-
with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of
realisation to the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by
the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in
the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an
application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act")
claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries and
disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident
occurred on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was travelling on a lorry
bearing No.AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through Kothakota village,
proceeding to Hyderabad along with company materials. When the
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 2 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of Addakula village, RTC Bus
bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and negligent manner,
opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high speed, due to which,
the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the
petitioner also sustained grievous and simple injuries.
4. The facts show that on 04.12.2007 while the petitioner was
proceeding on a lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 9502 from Kadapa through
Kothakota village, proceeding to Hyderabad along with company
materials. When the lorry was moving on N.H.7 near outskirts of
Addakula village, RTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 1769 came in a rash and
negligent manner, opposite to his vehicle and hit the lorry in high
speed, due to which, the driver of lorry sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot and the petitioner also sustained grievous and simple
injuries On account of the said accident, the petitioner was shifted to
Mahaboobnagar Hospital, and later he was shifted to Krishna Institute
of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad, for better treatment. The
petitioner sustained spinal cord focal intra medullary and he was
discharged from KIMS on09.11.2007. Due to the injury caused to the
petitioner, he was bed ridden and lost his salary as Coordinator in
Shird Sai Eelectricals, Kadapa and getting salary of Rs.5,400/-. Due
to the accident, the petitioner sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-.
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 3 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written
statement while traversing the material averments with regard to proof
of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of
accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime
bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent
disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the
accident even though, there was no rash and negligence on the part of
APSRTC Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a
view to get compensation from APSRTC and further contended that the
petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner of lorry
bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer, which was involved in the
accident, as they are proper and necessary parties to the petition. The
claim of the petitioner is excessive.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, for
what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 4 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC,
no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that though the accident
was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC
Bus driver, police foisted case against the bus driver, with a view to get
compensation from APSRTC and the petition is bad for non-joinder of
owner of lorry bearing No.AP04U 9502 and its insurer.
9. The contention of the Appellant/APSRTC is that the finding of
the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the APSRTC Bus driver is not correct and that the Tribunal
failed to observe that the accident was occurred due to contributory
negligence of the lorry driver, and that the Tribunal failed to observe
that the owner of the lorry and insurer of the lorry are proper and
necessary parties in the case, and that the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, though Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9
discloses expenditure only for Rs.1,050/-, and the Tribunal failed to
observe that Ex.A-6 disability certificate was issued after 5 years, and
therefore, the order and decree of the Tribunal awarding a sum of
Rs.1,80,000/- against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- is not justified in law
and on facts and liable to be set aside.
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 5 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
10. The learned counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC reiterated the
above contentions in his arguments.
11. The learned counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that no
error was committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation
and the order and decree of the Tribunal was based on the material
available on record, and the Appellant/APSRTC did not adduce any
contra evidence to disprove the claim of the claimant regarding the
accident, medical expenses and disability suffered by the claimant.
12. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on
the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's APSRTC bus driver.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons
recorded by the Tribunal on that issue.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards
compensation against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- of the claimant in the
case under the following heads:
1 Medical Expenses Rs.25,000-00
2 Transport Charges Rs.15,000-00
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 6 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
3 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000-00
4 Special diet and Attendant Rs.10,000-00
Charges
5 Deformity and loss of earning Rs.1,00,000-00
power
TOTAL = Rs.1,80,000-00
14. The respondent/claimant mentioned in the claim petition that
he has undergo a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenditure;
Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges and incidental charges;
Rs.5,000/- for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- for partial loss of
earnings; and he claimed Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earnings, on account of the disability
suffered by him, and it appears that claimant, though claimed a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, restricted the claim for
Rs.2,00,000/- only. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of
claimant, the doctors, who were examined as P.W-2 and P.W-3
respectively, Ex.A-2 copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-4 salary certificate,
Ex.A-5 discharge summary, Ex.A-6 disability certificate, Ex.A-7
detailed bill, Ex.A-8 bill and Ex.A-9 medical bill for Rs.1,000/-, has
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 7 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in total under various heads as
mentioned above.
15. The respondent/claimant as P.W-1 in his evidence deposed that
he suffered unbearable pain due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, and one attendant was with him for a period of three months
and he has spent amount of Rs.9,000/- towards attendant charges.
The Tribunal in its order has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards special diet
and attendant charges.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs.
E.Srinivas and another1 held that "In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life can be awarded ."
17. Ex.A-2 certified copy of wound certificate filed by the claimant
shows that he has suffered two injuries and the first injury is a
(2013) 12 S.C.C.455
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 8 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
laceration and it was certified as simple injury. The second injury
numbness of all four limbs, and the doctor certified it as a grievous
injury and the patient was taken to Krishna Institute of Medical
Sciences Limited, Secunderabad, where he was treated for cervical
spine injury with central cord syndrome, which is a grievous injury
and that he was discharged on 09.12.2007.
18. The claimant/petitioner evidence shows that he sustained
injuries all over body, particularly, cervical spine injury with central
cord syndrome, and injury over periorbital region of the left eye and
paraesthesia in all the limbs and initially he was admitted in
Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, and later he was treated to
Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Secunderabad for better
treatment from 05.12.2007 to 09.12.2007 as in-patient and he
suffered unbearable pain, and one attender was helping him for a
period of three months, for which he spent more than Rs.9,000/- and
he has incurred an amount of Rs.16,358/- towards medicines,
treatment and hospitalisation charges in Krishna Institute of Medical
Sciences Limited, Secunderabad, and he also spent Rs.20,000/-
towards transportation charges to go to Hyderabad from
Mahaboobnagar and Hyderabad to Kadapa, and inspite of prolonging
treatment, injuries were not healed, and he has been suffering
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 9 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
unbearable pain during night times, and unable to do any work, and
therefore, he is not in a position to maintain himself and his family.
19. The petitioner to corroborate his evidence has examined
Dr.C.Sanjeevayya, as P.W-2, who was working as Asst. Professor in
RIMS, Kadapa. He deposed that he examined the claimant on
22.02.2013 before the District Medical Board, Kadapat, and found 1)
Malunited cervical spine of C2 vertebra, 2) Residuals weakness of both
upper limbs due to central card syndrome, 3) Painful restricted
movements of left shoulder due to post traumatic perionthritis, 4)
Difficulty to lift the objects with both upper limbs and 5) Reduced grips
strength of both hands, and based on the above problems, he assessed
the disability as permanent disability but it is a partial disability as
35%, and he assessed the disability basing upon the physical
examination, X-ray, wound certificate and discharge summary. The
petitioner as already stated above, produced wound certificate and
discharge summary as Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-5 in his evidence. P.W-2
issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate.
20. The evidence of doctor, who issued Ex.A-6 disabilty certificate
shows that the respondent/claimant has been suffering with 1)
Malunited cervical spine of C2 vertebra, 2) Residuals weakness of both
upper limbs due to central card syndrome, 3) Painful restricted
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 10 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
movements of left shoulder due to post traumatic perionthritis, 4)
Difficulty to lift the objects with both upper limbs and 50 Reduced
grips strength of both hands even after five years of the accident,
which indicates that as rightly stated by the doctor, the claimant
suffered permanent partial disability, and the doctor assessed
disability percentage as 35%.
21. The respondent/claimant to establish his case regarding the loss
of future earnings on account of permanent partial disability suffered
by him, has examined one witness as P.W-3, who was Manager of one
Sri Shiridi Sai Electricals at Kadapa. He deposed that the petitioner is
working in their company since 1995 till the date of accident and the
petitioner salary was Rs.6,000/- per month, and petitioner was
working as Material Co-ordinator in their company and after deducting
certain amounts towards EPF, ESI allowances, the petitioner was
receiving Rs.5,450/- per month, and they are also paying Rs.100/- per
day whenever the petitioner is attending duties of transporting
materials and accordingly, they issued Ex.A-4 salary certificate to the
claimant. In the cross-examination of Appellant/APSRTC, he deposed
that their company not filed any record to show that the petitioner is
working in their company, but Ex.A-4 is showing that the claimant is
their employee and they are paying salary to him. He denied the
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 11 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
suggestion of APSRTC that the claimant never worked in their
company and that Ex.A-4 was issued only to help the case of the
claimant. Except that, nothing was elicited from P.W-3 to disbelieve
his evidence and Ex.A-4 salary certificate issued by their company.
22. The Tribunal considering the above aspects and awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/claimant towards loss of future
earnings, against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. In that view of the
matter, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in awarding
Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earnings.
23. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical
expenditure; Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges; Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for special diet and attendant
charges. The above facts and circumstances show that the claimant
sustained one grievous injury to the spinal card and he has taken
treatment in KIMS Hospital at Secunderabad from 05.12.2007 to
09.12.2007. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in
awarding Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses to the claimant.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs.
E.Srinivas and another held that " in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 12 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
claimant, that compensation can be granted under the heads of (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity)", apart from expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenses, and loss of earnings during the period of
treatment.
25. Ex.A-8 is a Registration Slip showing that the
respondent/claimant was admitted in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad,
for taking treatment in Neuro Department under the consultation of
Dr.Chandra Sekhar. Ex.A-9 is a receipt dated 20.02.2013 issued in
the year 2013 by Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, General
Hospital, Kadapa, for Rs.1,000/- towards physically handicapped
certificate. Ex.A-5 is the discharge summary issued by Department of
Neuro Surgeon, KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. It shows that the
respondent/claimant was admitted in the hospital on 05.12.2007 and
discharged on 09.12.2007 and Neuro Surgeon attended treatment of
respondent/claimant for cervical spine injury with central cord
syndrome and further, it shows that several medical investigations
were conducted during the course of treatment on 05.12.2007, and
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 13 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
patient was managed conservatively and he was discharged in stable
condition and at the time of discharge, patient was able to walk
without support, but suffering with bilateral hand grip weakness and
he was advised to wear cervical collar for eight weeks.
26. The above facts and circumstances show that the
respondent/claimant has taken treatment in KIMS Hospital,
Secunderabad, and several medical investigations were conducted in
the hospital, for which the respondent/claimant will incur
expenditure. In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity
or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, in awarding Rs.25,000/-
towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges,
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.10,000/- towards
special diet and attendant charges and Rs.1,00,000/- towards
deformity and loss of earning power.
27. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
28. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award
25.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.24/2009 on the file of Motor
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 14 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
17.10.2022
psk
BVLNC MACMA 231 of 2016
Page 15 of 15 Dt: 17.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.231 OF 2016
17th October, 2022
psk
