Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Apsrtc vs Smt.P.Girijamma on 14 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.439 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein is the APSRTC filed this appeal
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the
Award and Decree dated 18.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.
70 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II
Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, (in short "learned
tribunal') granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with
interest at 7.5% per annum for the injuries sustained by
the 1st respondent/petitioner in the accident that occurred
on 02.01.2015. This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the
impugned decree and award passed by the learned
Tribunal.
2. The 1st respondent/ petitioner has filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(in short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
along with interest at 12% p.a against the respondents for
the injuries sustained by the appellant in the Motor Vehicle
accident. The brief facts of the claim application is that on
02.01.2015 at about 11.00 a.m when she was walking by
the left side of the road to get a bus and when she reached
near RBGH Bus Stand, Tirumala, the bus belongs to
APSRTC driven by its driver drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the appellant, thereby she
sustained injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Aswini
Hospital, Tirumala for treatment and later shifted to SVRR
Government Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. The
Tirumala Traffic Police Station registered a case in Crime
No. 1 of 2015. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the
time of accident and she was doing tailoring work. On
account of injuries sustained by her in the said accident,
she lost her future earning capacity in view of her
disability. Hence, the claim petition.
3. The driver of the bus i.e 2nd respondent herein, 1st
respondent before the learned tribunal has filed written
statement by denying material allegations made in the
claim petition and mainly contended that the 1st
respondent/ petitioner tried to board the moving bus and
fell down on the road and sustained injuries to her right
hand. Therefore there is no negligence on the part of the
respondents. The appellant herein also filed written
statement in similar lines as stated by the 2nd respondent.
The appellant sustained minor injuries and that the claim
made by her is highly excessive and exorbitant and
requested to dismiss the petition.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent manner of the driver of APSRTC Bus
bearing its registration No. AP 28 Z 3789 resulting
which the injuries caused to the petitioner by
name P. Girijamma?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as claimed for?
3. To what relief?
5. During the trial, the 1st respondent herein herself
was examined as P.W.1, besides examining PWs 2 and 3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of appellant, no
oral evidence adduced and no document was marked.
6. Learned tribunal, after hearing on both sides and
also considering the oral and documentary evidence on
their behalf, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-
together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of the
petition till the date of deposit of realization. The appellant/
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount into
learned tribunal within two months from the date of award.
Assailing the same the present appeal came to be filed.
7. Heard Mr. K. Viswanadham, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Kannedhara Anuradha,
learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
8. During hearing learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erred in
granting the amount as claimed under the head of future
earnings due to the injuries sustained by the appellant in
the accident and granted are very high amount towards
simple injuries. Further the learned Tribunal failed to
consider the fact that at the time of the accident the 1st
respondent was tried to board moving bus and lost control
fallen down from the bus and she sustained injuries, as
such the accident was occurred only due to negligence on
the part of the 1st respondent. But the learned tribunal
without considering the said facts awarded the claim as
prayed for even though there is contributory negligence on
the part of the 1st respondent is not sustainable under eye
of law. Therefore the impugned award is liable to be set
aside.
9. Whereas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/
petitioner vehemently opposed to allow the appeal as the
learned tribunal rightly assessed the value of the damages
within the parameters of the Act and passed award and
that there is no error in the award passed by the learned
Tribunal. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.
10. Perused the record.
11. When the petition filed under Section 163-A of
M.V.Act, it is the duty of the claimant i.e 1st respondent to
prove that she sustained injuries which reduced her future
earning capacity creating any permanent disability. But
here, the 1st respondent sustained only simple injuries as
per Wound Certificate i.e Ex.A3. By taking into
consideration of the same, the learned tribunal awarded
Rs. 3,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and also Rs.
10,000/- towards medical expenses and also various
amounts have granted under respective heads, which is
sufficient and justifiable.
12. As per the material available on record including
the oral evidence and documentary evidence the learned
Tribunal granted reasonable amount and sufferance and
the 1st respondent has not produced any other medical
bills. However, she was treated in Government Hospital.
13. A perusal of the impugned award would show
that the learned tribunal has rightly dealt the issues in
proper perspective and held that the appellant and 2nd
respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons and a perusal of
the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well
considered order by taking into consideration all the
aspects. Therefore, there is no impropriety or illegality in
the order of the learned tribunal and that warrant of
interference by this Court does not required.
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
____________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Dated 14.12.2023.
KK
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
14.12.2023
KK
