Mohyammed Ghouse Basha vs Apsrtc.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 692 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.1392 of 2012


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.735 of 2004 on

the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District

Judge), Nellore, and the respondent is the respondent in the said

case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act against the respondent/Corporation, praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor

Vehicle Accident occurred on 12.02.2004 at 9.00 PM.

4. Originally the learned Tribunal passed a common order

against both the O.Ps i.e., MVOP.No.734 of 2004 and

MVOP.No.735 of 2004. Against the order passed in MVOP.No.734 VGKRJ MACMA 1392 of 2012 Page 2 of 8 Dt:09.02.2023

of 2004, no appeal is filed. The claimant in MVOP.No.735 of 2004

filed the present appeal.

5. The case of the claimant is that on 12.02.2004, when the

petitioner was going on a Moped at about 9.00 p.m. near Varagali

cross roads, the RTC bus bearing No.AP11Z 2372 came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which,

the petitioner fell down and received grievous injuries and the

petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

compensation.

6. The respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. filed a counter denying the claim

application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any

compensation and the respondent/Corporation is not liable to pay

any compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the

Motor Vehicle bearing registration No.AP11Z 2372

of respondent?

 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 1392 of 2012
Page 3 of 8                                     Dt:09.02.2023




 ii.    Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?

        If so, to what amount?

 iii.   To what relief?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner in MVOP.No.735 of

2004 is examined as PW2 and the doctor, who treated the petitioner

in the present appeal is examined as PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6. On behalf of the respondent/Corporation,RW1was examined

and no documentswere marked.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the

offending vehicle in the said accident and the petitioner has received

grievous injuries due to the negligent act of the driver of the

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP11Z 2372 and the Tribunal granted

an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal

by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 1392 of 2012
Page 4 of 8                                     Dt:09.02.2023




11.     Now, the point for consideration is:

        Whether     the   Order     of   Tribunal   needs     any

interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

12. POINT:-

The petitioner himself is examined as P.W.2 and got marked

the certified copy of First Information Report as Ex.A1, charge sheet

as Ex.A3, certified copy of wound certificate of claimant as Ex.A4,

case sheet as Ex.A5 and X-ray film as Ex.A6.

13. Basing on the material on record, the learned Tribunal came to

a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP11Z 2372.

The respondent corporation has not filed any appeal against the

said finding. Therefore, this Court has to decide whether the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

14. As seen from the evidence of PW2 coupled with the evidence

of PW3/doctor, the claimant/appellant herein received two fracture

injuries. But unfortunately, the learned Tribunal has not granted any VGKRJ MACMA 1392 of 2012 Page 5 of 8 Dt:09.02.2023

compensation in respect of two grievous injuries and the learned

Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and attendance.

The Tribunal ignored to grant compensation for grievous injuries.

The accident is occurred in the year 2004. It is not disputed by both

the sides that the appellant herein sustained two grievous injuries.

Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is to be awarded for each

grievous injury. Thus, the claimant is entitled for an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards two grievous injuries sustained by him in the

Motor Vehicle accident.

15. Another important aspect is that the Tribunal also not granted

any compensation towards loss of earnings to the claimant. As per

the contention of the petitioner in MVOP.No.735 of 2004, due to the

fracture injuries sustained by him, he suffered a lot and he lost his

earnings for about three months. It is clearly stated that the

accident is occurred in the year 2004. In those days, an ordinary

coolie can easily earn Rs.50/- to 75/- per day. Therefore, the

claimant is entitled to loss of earnings of three months at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled VGKRJ MACMA 1392 of 2012 Page 6 of 8 Dt:09.02.2023

Rs.6,000/-(Rs.2,000 x 3 = Rs.6,000/-), because the claimant

suffered two fracture injuries and he is unable to do any work for a

period of three months subsequent to the accident. Thus, in total

the appellant is entitled compensation of Rs.12,000 + 30,000 +

6,000 = Rs.48,000/-, with interest @7.5% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation, from the date of petition, till the date of payment by

respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. The respondent/Corporation is directed to

deposit the balance amount within one month from the date of

judgment. The award dated 18.11.2006 passed in MVOP.No.735 of

2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District

Judge, Nellore, is modified accordingly.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in-part, by modifying the

order dated 18.11.2006 passed in MVOPNo.735/2004 on the file of

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Nellore. It is

held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.48,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation, from the date of petition, till the date of payment.

The respondent is directed to deposit the balance amount within one

month from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the VGKRJ MACMA 1392 of 2012 Page 7 of 8 Dt:09.02.2023

appellant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued

interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 09.02.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1392 of 2012
Page 8 of 8                              Dt:09.02.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1392 of 2012

09.02.2023

sj