Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bhumireddi Obul Reddy vs Apsrtc, Rep.By Its Md, ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: T Mallikarjuna Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.1306 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.793 of
2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribun-
al-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short 'the Tribun-
al'), the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of
the compensation.
2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P for con-
venience.
3. The claimant filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Ve-
hicles Act, 1988 and rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 r/w Act
No.54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that oc-
curred on 25.10.2002.
4. The claimant's case is that on 25.10.2002, he, and his friends,
boarded the A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP10-Z-3571 (hereinaf-
ter will be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') to go to their vil-
lage. When the offending bus reached Mogamuru vanka be-
tween Muddanur - Pulivendula Road at about 05.30 PM, they
requested the offending bus driver and conductor to stop the
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
bus at the bus stop. But the offending bus driver and conductor
did not stop the bus. As a result, the claimant who attempted to
get down from the bus fell on the ground and sustained severe
head injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the offending
bus driver and conductor. On the report given by one of his
friends, a case in Cr.No.52 of 2002 under section 337 of I.P.C
was registered against the offending bus driver and conductor.
5. The Respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C filed a written statement, denied
the petition averments, and contended that the accident oc-
curred due to the claimant's negligence, who tried to get down
from the running bus. The claimant's claim is highly excessive.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant
issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined
and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondent, no oral
and documentary was adduced.
7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending bus driver. The Tribunal granted compensation of
Rs.30,000/- under various heads together with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realiza-
tion against the respondent.
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
8. I have heard the learned counsel representing both parties.
9. In the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding lesser compensa-
tion under the heads of medical expenses, loss of income, pain
and suffering and loss of amenities; the Tribunal erred in reject-
ing the Ex.A.7-disability certificate and the evidence of PW.2.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.
11. Now the point for determination is:
Is the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tri-
bunal just and reasonable and requires enhance-
ment?
P O I N T:
12. The Tribunal's findings that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver and the
injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, as evident by
Ex.A2-certified copy of the wound certificate, are not disputed
by the respondents in M.V.O.P by filing a cross objection or ap-
peal. The said findings attained finality.
13. The claimant's case that he sustained a severe head injury in
the accident; he underwent treatment at the Government Hos-
pital, Pulivendula and from there, he was referred to the Kur-
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
nool General Hospital for better treatment is not disputed by the
respondents.
14. The evidence of the claimant as PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.2-
wound certificate shows that he sustained a fracture of the fron-
tal region. The CT Scan-Ex.A.4 taken at Government Hospital
shows the fracture of the right frontal bone. As already noted,
the said claimant's case is not disputed by the other side. The
claimant contends he spent around Rs.50,000/- on medical ex-
penses. However, he has not produced documentary evidence to
show the incurrence of such an amount. It has not awarded any
amount towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded an
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards treatment. Considering the na-
ture of the injuries, this Court views that Rs.15,000/- can be
awarded towards medical expenses and treatment.
15. The Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.10,000/- for pain,
suffering and mental agony and granted an amount of
Rs.15,000/- for grievous injury. Considering the nature of inju-
ries and age of the claimant, i.e., '16' at the time of the accident,
this Court views that an amount of Rs.30,000/- to be awarded
for pain and suffering and trauma caused due to the injuries
sustained in the accident.
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
16. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- for disability,
loss of amenities of life and income due to the injuries. The
claimant has relied on the evidence of PW.2 to prove Ex.A.7-
Disability certificate, assessing disability at 60%. No evidence is
placed before the Court to show that PW.1 underwent treatment
with PW.2. The disability certificate was issued on 06.02.2010.
Considering the time gap between the accident and the disabili-
ty certificate issued, the Tribunal has not accepted the clai-
mant's case regarding the disability. I don't find any reason to
interfere with the same.
17. Ex.A.5 certificate shows that the claimant got admitted to the
Neurosurgery ward on 26.10.2002 with a head injury and dis-
charged on 08.11.2002. Ex.A.7-disability certificate shows that
the claimant complained of giddiness, defective memory and
unable to succeed in his studies. The claimant sustained a head
injury, so the possibility of suffering with such giddiness and
defective memory cannot be ruled out.
18. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation for attendant
charges, extra nourishment, nervous shock, and transport
charges. However, based on the severity of the claimant's inju-
ries, this Court views that Rs.5,000/- should be awarded for at-
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
tendant charges and Rs.30,000/- should be awarded for extra
nourishment, nervous shock, and transport charges.
19. To show that the claimant was pursuing education as of the
date of accident, he relied on the Ex.A.6-Provisional certificate.
The claimant contends that he could not pursue the education
subsequently. Considering the same, this Court views an
amount of Rs.15,000/- to be awarded towards loss of education
and other amenities.
20. In all, this Court is inclined to fix the compensation under vari-
ous heads as detailed hereunder:
S.No Head of the claim Enhanced Com-
pensation
1. Medical expenses and treatment Rs.15,000/-
2. Pain and suffering and trauma Rs.30,000/-
3. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
4. Extra nourishment, nervous shock Rs.30,000/-
and transport charges
5. Loss of education and other ameni- Rs.15,000/-
ties.
Total Rs.95,000/-
21. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is inclined to fix
the compensation at Rs.95,000/-. Accordingly, the point is
answered.
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the com-
pensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
Thousand Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of realization. Respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C
is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within two
months, after excluding the already deposited amount, from the
date of receipt of the order copy. On such deposit, the claimant
is entitled to withdraw the compensation by filing an appropri-
ate application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to
costs.
23. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 18.04.2023
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
MACMA.No.1306 of 2012
Date: 18.04.2023
