The Apsrtc., vs Dane Ramanjanamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 7224 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                        MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 04.02.2013 in MVOP.No.55 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum -- I Additional District Judge, I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, (for short 'the Tribunal'), the respondent Managing Director, APSRTC filed this appeal questioning granting of the compensation amount of Rs.7,66,500/- to the petitioner against the respondents.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.55 of 2012.

3. The claim is made by the petitioner under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles At claiming the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs for the injuries sustained by her. As seen from the record the accident occurred on 30.11.2011 at about 03.00PM the petitioner along with other passengers were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP02W2126 from Kotha Chedalla Village to Anantapur Town. When the auto reached at Saneswara Swamy Temple at Musalamma Koatta on Anantapur to Tadipatri road, the APSRTC bus bearing Number AP29Z1534 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto which was going very slowly and due to that the auto was turned turtle and the petitioner sustained injuries and she was shifted to Government Hospital in an Ambulance.

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

4. The respondent filed counter disputing the contents raised in the petition by submitting that the petition is not maintainable due to non impleadment of the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, in which the petitioner was proceeding has driven and there was no negligence on the part of driver of bus in causing the accident, there was only negligence on the part of driver of auto.

5. Before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.C1 were marked and on behalf of respondent RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus belonging to the respondent.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and perused the record.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of RTC bus. On the other hand the accident occurred due to head on collision and the claimant failed to produce monthly income in proof, and the auto came in opposite direction with crowded passengers driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in zigzag manner and dashed the bus on the right side and the tribunal ought to have granted an interest at 7.5% per annum.

9. Now the points for consideration are whether the tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the driver of respondent and the interest awarded by the tribunal is correct.

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

10. As seen from the record the respondent has not disputed the case of petitioner that he sustained injuries in the accident.

11. To prove the accident the petitioner herself got examined as PW.1 and he relied on Ex.A1 - certified copy of FIR, Ex.A3 - certified copy of charge sheet and to show that he sustained injuries in the accident he relied on Ex.A2 - certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A4 - original disability certificate and Ex.A7 - X ray films and he also produced Ex.A5 - medical bills and Ex.A6 - admission and discharge summary report.

12. As seen from the record, the insurance company has not disputed the case of petitioner regarding his hospitalization and getting treatment and also incurring expenditure. The case of the petitioner is established by the evidence of PWs.2 to 3 and also it is not disputed that the claimant sustained injuries and 50% of disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However the respondent has disputed quantum of compensation amount awarded by the tribunal on the sole ground that the tribunal ought to have taken notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The claimant claims that she used to attend coolie work. Now it is to be considered whether the claimant is able to establish that she used to earn income as arrived at by the tribunal.

13. The respondent has not placed any material before the court to substantiate the said contention, that by the time of accident there was no possibility of earning of Rs.3,500/- by the petitioner by attending coolie works. After considering the material on record this court is of view that the finding given by the tribunal regarding the income of person working coolie work as Rs.3,500/- is just and reasonable and the said finding of the tribunal need not be

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

interfered with. "The principle emerging from Lakshmi Devi Vs. Mohammad Tabber 1 Apex Court is that in today's world, even a common skilled labour can very easily earn Rs.100/- per day. The accident is the question occurred in the year 2011, the learned tribunal is in earning of petitioner at Rs.3,500/-.

14. Now this court is inclined to consider whether the petitioner is able to establish that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driving of the driver of RTC bus. PW.1 who sustained injuries in the accident has narrated the case. Though PW.1 was cross examined, nothing was elicited to disprove her evidence. On behalf of respondent its driver was examined as RW.1 he admitted that a criminal case was registered against him and the charge sheet was also filed against him. His evidence is not inspiring the confidence with regard to the manner of accident as deposed by him. None of the parties had shown interest to examine any witness to prove the manner of accident though the charge sheet relied upon by the petitioner shows that there are several eye witnesses to the accident. In the said facts of the case the tribunal has rightly considered the evidence placed before it and came to the correct conclusion.

15. The reading of evidence of RW.1 shows that why he failed to avert the accident. The only excuse shown by the respondent that several persons were proceeding in the auto at the time of accident. Merely because the auto was said to be crowded that by passengers when it was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road very slowly. It cannot be considered as a ground to the respondent to allege that the accident occurred due to the rash driving of the auto driver.

2008 ACJ 1488

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

When once it has established that there was no negligence on the part of auto driver non impleadment of the owner and the insurer of the auto will not affect the case of petitioner in any way. Since there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation as awarded by the tribunal by either of the parties. This court is of view that the findings given by the tribunal to be considered as final and binding.

16. As already observed that PW.1 has given evidence in support of her case, her evidence is reliable and trustworthy. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 charge sheet in support of its case, no evidence is placed by the respondent to show that the contents of charge sheet are correct. In a decision reported in between K.Rajani and others V. M.Satyanarayana Goud and others2, the High Court is pleased to observe that:

"when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be totally incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false".

In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation3, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied".

There is nothing on record to suggest that that the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the driver of crime vehicle without

2015 ACJ 797

2009 ACJ 1725 (SC)

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

conducting proper investigation and also it is difficult to assume that the Police Officer Could fabricated a case against the respondent in absence of evidence.

17. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. Document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is by now well settled that even FIR or Police Papers, when made part of claim petition can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident and for reaching conclusion. The preponderance of probabilities is the touch stone for arriving at a conclusion regarding rashness and negligent as well as mode and manner of happening of the accident.

18. This court is of view that when the respondent contends that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased it is expected to place necessary before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has accepted the case of claimants regarding the observations made by the Investigating Officer about the manner of accident.

19. Upon careful reading of the material on record this court is of view that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle holds good. Regarding the compensation amount the petitioner relied on Ex.A2 wound certificate it establishes that the petitioner sustained several injuries. The injuries were noted as grievous in nature. However but as per the evidence of PW.3 he had noted five injuries are grievous

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

in nature. The tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- as five injuries are grievous in nature and the evidence of PW.3 shows that he conducted operation and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and the petitioner has filed medical bills showing an expenditure of Rs.3,26,238/-. The petitioner examined PW.4 to prove the medical bills marked under Exs.A5 to A7 and by considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,26,500/-. To prove the disability the petitioner examined PW.2 who issued disability certificate and considering the age of the petitioner the tribunal gave multiplier as '15' and as the disability is noted as 50%, the actual loss of income to the petitioner is Rs.3,15,000/-.

20. PW.2 stated in his evidence the petitioner needs support for walking as there is 80 degrees of flexion of knee and extensor leg and the tribunal observed that the petitioner cannot attend her regular work and the said finding is given basing on the medical record and disability certificate and the tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner did not claim such amount for the future medical expenses, such amount cannot be awarded.

21. It is settled law that irrespective of the quantum of comepsation and the heads under which the compensation is claimed, it is the duty of the tribunal to award compensation which is just and reasonable in the light of the facts and circumstances established in each case ("Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7989 of 2002, dated 03.12.2002, Laxman Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 2012 ACJ 191").

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

22. In the said decision it is also observed that motor vehicle act does not provide for compensate further awarding after final award is passed. It is observed that M.V.Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award is passed. Therefore, in case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical check up, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. Hence, only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, the tribunal can consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. The court finds that the term compensation would include not only expenses incurred for medical treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for particular injury or disability caused by an accident".

23. In view of the aforementioned discussion I do not find any substance in the appeal and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed without costs and the order dt.04.02.2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.55 of 2012 is hereby confirmed.

24. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date : 20.09.2022.

BV/KGM

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

MACMA.No.986 OF 2013 Date : 20.09.2022

BV/KGM