Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Depot Mgr, Visakhapatnam ... vs Avireddy Siva Parvathi, ... on 27 September, 2022
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 1 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.82 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the APSRTC challenging the award
dated 17.08.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.149/2015 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Addl.District Judge,
Visakhapatnam, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition
partly, awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,930/- with interest @ 7.5%
P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the 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/claimant filed
an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the
Act") claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of the
injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 14.09.2014 while the petitioner was travelling as
a pillion rider and her husband being rider of two wheeler were
proceeding on motor cycle.
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 2 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
4. The facts show that on 14.09.2014 when the petitioner as pillion
rider and her husband as rider of the motor cycle and when they
reached near NAD Junction, at that time the 1st respondent driver of
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2621, drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed
the motor cycle from behind, as a result, the petitioner and her
husband fell down on road along with motor cycle. The petitioner
received grievous injuries to all over body and she was shifted to Care
Hospital and she underwent two major operations. Basing on the
statement of the petitioner, Kancharapalem P.S. registered a case in
Cr.No.178/2014 U/s.338 of I.P.C. against the driver of the said
APSRTC Bus. The petitioner getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month
as a Teacher and due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, she is
unable to attend her job.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the 3rd respondent in
the petition, filed written statement 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 disability and liability to pay compensation and
contended that the driver of the APSRTC bus never drove the bus in a
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 3 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
rash or negligent manner and there is gross negligence on the part of
the petitioner in causing the accident. The respondents 1 and 2 i.e.,
driver of the offending bus and the Depot Manager of Visakhapatnam
were remained exparte.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle
accident occurred on 14.09.2014 due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2621?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to
what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of 3rd respondent, R.W-1
was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.
8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to
3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14, 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 to 3
corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-14, awarded a compensation of
Rs.2,20,930/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, to
the date of realisation.
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 4 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
9. The plea of the APSRTC is that the driver of the APSRTC bus is
not responsible for the accident. It was pleaded that the accident had
occurred due to the negligent act of rider of motor cycle, who is the
husband of the claimant/petitioner.
10. 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 driver and that the
petitioner sustained injuries due to the said accident. I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the
Tribunal on that issue.
11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3
coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14, awarded an amount of Rs.1,63,930/-
towards medical expenses. The Tribunal further fixed Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering; fixed attendant charges at Rs.5,000/-;
fixed loss of earnings during the course of treatment at Rs.12,000/-;
fixed extra nourishment charges at Rs.10,000/- and total
Rs.2,20,930/-.
12. As seen from the record, the Appellant/APSRTC examined the
driver of the said bus as R.W-1 before the Tribunal, in support of the
pleas taken by the APSRTC in the written statement.
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 5 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
13. The contention of the Appellant/APSRTC is that, the claimant
failed to establish the rash or negligent driving on the part of the
APSRTC Bus driver and that the victim's husband did not observe
traffic regulations, and he was equally responsible and contributed to
the accident, which caused injuries to the victim/claimant.
14. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimant, who was
examined as P.W-1. The claimant in her evidence deposed the
manner, in which the accident was occurred. The claimant to
corroborate her evidence, filed Ex.A-1 FIR, Ex.A-3 MVI Report and
Ex.A-4 charge sheet copies, which discloses that police registered FIR
for the offence punishable U/s.338 of the Indian Penal Code against
the driver of the APSRTC bus, who is 1st respondent herein. The police
also investigated the crime and laid the police report (charge sheet),
alleging that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving
of the driver of the APSRTC bus.
15. It is pertinent to note down that the driver of the crime bus did
not contest the case of the claimant and remained exparte,
surprisingly, he was examined as a witness for the 3rd respondent i.e.,
Appellant herein. The driver without any pleadings deposed that he did
not drive the APSRTC bus in a rash or negligent manner and that the
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 6 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the rider of
the motor cycle, on which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider.
16. In the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the
evidence of the driver cannot be believed and accepted the evidence of
P.W-1/claimant and gave a finding that the accident was occurred due
to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. In that
view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
findings of the Tribunal on that issue.
17. The contention of the Appellant is that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.1,63,930/- towards medical expenses and transportation
and that Rs.30,000/- as damages towards pain and suffering.
18. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W-2, who was an
M.L.C. Consultant in Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and P.W-3, who
was a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in Care Hospital,
Visakhapatnam, where the claimant was treated for the injuries
sustained in the accident. The Tribunal considered Ex.A-2 wound
certificate of the injured, Exs.A-9 to A-11 medical bills issued by Care
Hospital, Pharmacy Wing and also Ex.A-12 discharge summary issued
by the Care Hospital.
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 7 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
19. The Tribunal also considered Ex.A-14 X-ray films and Ex.X-1
case sheet of the Care Hospital and also Ex.A-10 photographs and
opined that the 3rd respondent did not adduce any rebuttable evidence
to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 with regard to nature of
injuries sustained by P.W-1 and treatment taken by her in Care
Hospital and held that P.W-1 sustained one grievous injury i.e.,
fracture of right humerus and one simple injury and further, she was
treated as in-patient in the hospital from 14.09.2014 to 20.09.2014
and also from 13.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 and she underwent surgery
twice and spent an amount of Rs.1,63,930/- as covered by Exs.A-9 to
A-11 towards treatment, medicines and transportation and awarded
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; and also awarded Rs.5,000/-
towards attendant charges and also awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss
of earning during the course of treatment and also awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal in total
awarded a sum of Rs.2,20,930/- towards compensation to the
claimant.
20. I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has considered
the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 and the above medical record of Care
Hospital, Visakhapatnam, about the injuries sustained by the
claimant, expenditure incurred towards treatment, medicines and
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 8 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
transportation and awarded the compensation amount with interest @
7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The
claimant made a claim to award Rs.3,50,000/-, but the Tribunal after
considering all the above facts and circumstances, awarded
Rs.2,20,930/- towards compensation.
21. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid grounds or
reasons to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
22. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award
dated 17.08.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.149/2015 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Addl.District Judge,
Visakhapatnam. 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.
27.09.2022
psk
BVLNC,J MACMA 82/2016
Page 9 of 9 Dt: 27.09.2022.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.82 OF 2016
27th September, 2022
psk
