Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs M. Venkataiah on 15 September, 2022
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 1 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.308 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the APSRTC challenging the award
dated 24.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.898/2011 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Nellore, wherein
the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation
of Rs.2,13,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till
the date of realisation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by the
petitioner.
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.4,00,000/- on account of the injuries and
disability sustained by the petitioner in a road accident occurred on
02.12.2009 while the petitioner was talking with Jyothiramaiah by the
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 2 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
offending APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z 8379 near rice mill centre,
Giddaluru village, SPSR Nellore District.
4. The facts show that on 02.12.2009 at about 05.30 p.m. when
the petitioner was talking with Jyothiramaiah near rice mill centre,
Giddaluru village, SPSR Nellore District, at that time the offending
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 8379 came in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed, while turning the bus at the bus stop, came
and hit the petitioner from his behind. On account of the said impact,
the petitioner fell down on the road and the left rear wheel of the said
bus ran over the left leg and caused crush injury to the left leg.
Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital,
Guduru and later he was shifted to DSR Government Head Quarters
Hospital, Nellore, for better treatment, where he was treated as in-
patient. Amputation of left leg upto knee joint was done. He cannot
walk without help of stick and cannot move from the bed without
assistance of others and the petitioner became permanently disabled
and he spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The accident
was reported to SHO, Sydapuram P.S. and the same was registered as
a case in Cr.No.130/2009 for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian
Penal Code against the driver of the said APSRTC Bus, who was
discharging duties under the respondent.
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 3 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the respondent in the
petition, filed counter resisting 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 there is no rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the said
bus in causing the accident.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of rash
and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z
8379 by its driver and whether it resulted in injuries to the
claimant?
2. Whether claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount?
3. To what relief?
7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.C-1 and C-2. The driver of the
offending bus was examined as R.W-1 and no documents were marked
on behalf of the respondent.
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 4 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Exs.C-1 and C-2, held that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the APSRTC bus, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence
of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Exs.C-1 and C-2,
awarded a compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A.
from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
9. The contention of the respondent/APSRTC is that the Tribunal
committed irregularity in holding that the accident was occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus, without
any acceptable evidence on record.
10. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimant, who was
examined as P.W-1 and also considered the evidence of the driver of
the said APSRTC Bus, who was examined as R.W-1. The driver in the
evidence admitted that he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, the Tribunal hold that the evidence of the driver cannot be
believed that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of said APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 8379. In that view
of the matter, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 5 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
or reasons recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus.
11. The contention of the respondent/APSRTC is that the Tribunal
erred in awarding compensation in the absence of medical certificate
and also disability certificate.
12. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimant and also
the evidence of Medical Officer, who treated the claimant and held that
the claimant suffered crush injury on left leg, foot and ankle with
vascular deficit. X-rays revealed multiple fractures to left foot bones.
Amputation of left leg was done and disability suffered is 50% and the
evidence of Medical Officer shows that the claimant had undergone
amputation and therefore, the percentage of disability is 50%. In the
light of above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
contention of the respondent/APSRTC.
13. The Tribunal estimated the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-
per month, as he was working as a mason and arrived the annual
income at Rs.36,000/- and as the claimant could not prove his age as
55 years, the Tribunal considering the percentage of disability,
awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability.
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 6 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
14. The Tribunal estimated the loss of income for six months at
Rs.18,000/- and also awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferance,
Rs.15,000/- for extra nourishment, transportation, attendant charges
and medical expenses and awarded total amount of Rs.2,13,000/-
towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% P.A. and the compensation
amount is payable from the date of petition, till the date of realisation
with proportionate costs.
15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find
any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal
awarding compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- to the claimant.
16. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award
passed on 24.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.898/2011 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Court, Nellore. 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
15.09.2022
psk
BVLNC MACMA 308 of 2016
Page 7 of 7 Dt: 15.09.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.308 OF 2016
15th September, 2022
psk
