Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Md, Hyderabad vs Thummala Dhanalakshmi, Krishna ... on 18 January, 2023
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 1 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.711 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC,
challenging the award dated 29.08.2015 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.86/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-IX Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam, (for short 'the Tribunal'),
wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a
compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
petition to the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in a motor vehicle accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as
parties in the M.V.O.P.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an
application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the
Act") claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 27.07.2012.
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 2 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
4. The facts show that on 27.07.2012 at about 12.00 noon the
petitioner, who was a physically handicapped woman was waiting to
board a bus at Kodali centre in Kodali village at which time a
Pallevelugu APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 5151 proceeding from
Vijayawada to Devarakota village, and on her signal, the driver of the
said bus stopped the bus, and while she was boarding the bus, the
driver started the bus and the petitioner fell down under front tire and
the same ran over on her right leg ankle resulting in a crushed injury,
and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam in 108
ambulance. The petitioner had taken treatment for two months by
paying Rs.400/- per day, and an operation was conducted, and she
incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expense. A case was registered
against the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC bus, and the 2nd
respondent is the Managing Director of APSRTC, and both are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation. The petitioner has got one
brother and two sisters.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, filed a
counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to the
manner of the accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver
of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, avocation
and monthly earnings of the injured, liability to pay compensation,
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 3 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
and contended that at Kodali Centre, passengers alighted and after the
signal given by the conductor, driver started the bus, the petitioner
came in between autos hurriedly for boarding the bus, and by a dash
from the autos she fell down on the bumper of the bus and received an
injury, and that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the
bus driver. The 1st respondent/driver remained exparte.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on rash and
negligence driving of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC?
2. Whether the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the
petitioner, as contended by the 2nd respondent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? against
whom? to what extent?
4. To what relief?
7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the
2nd respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was
adduced.
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 4 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 held that the
accident took place due to the negligence on part of the 1st
respondent/driver, and further took into consideration the evidence of
P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2,
awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from
the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
9. This is an appeal filed by the APSRTC, questioning the award
passed by IX Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam, contending that the
Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash
and negligence of the driver of the bus, and that compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
10. In the light of above contentions raised by the appellant, the
points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive?
3. To what relief?
11. POINT No.1:
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 5 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
The contention of the claimant is that on 27.07.2012 at about
12.00 noon she was boarding the crime vehicle, APSRTC Bus AP 11Z
5151 proceeding from Vijayawada to Devarakota at Kodali Centre,
Kodali village; and the driver of the bus without observing that the
claimant, who was a differently abled person, moved the bus in a rash
and negligent manner, and as a result, the claimant fell down under
front tyre of the bus, and as a result, her right ankle was crushed
under the tyre of the bus; and she was shifted to Government Hospital,
Machilipatnam, and she was treated as in-patient for two months; and
an operation was also conducted, and she incurred Rs.50,000/-
towards medical expenses; and a case was also registered against the
driver of the APSRTC bus by the police; and after investigation they
laid police report (charge sheet) against driver of the APSRTC bus for
the offence punishable U/s.338 of the Indian Penal Code; and
therefore, the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the
driver of the APSRTC bus.
12. The appellant contended that the claimant hurriedly boarded the
bus without observing that bus was started, after a signal was given by
the Conductor, and she was dashed by the auto coming from the side
of the bus, and as a result, she fell down on the bumper of the bus,
and received the injury.
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 6 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
13. The claimant was examined as P.W-1. She deposed about the
way in which the accident was occurred, stating that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver, as he moved the bus
without observing that the claimant is a differently abled person, and
was boarding the bus. The appellant did not elicit anything in material
to disprove her version. The appellant did not examine its driver or
conductor to depose about the way in which the accident was
occurred, to support the case of the appellant. It is an admitted fact
that police registered a case against the driver of the bus for the
offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code, and after
investigation laid police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-4 against the
driver of the bus. In the light of these circumstances, there are no
grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
14. POINT No.2:
The Tribunal considering the evidence of the doctor and Ex.A-2
wound certificate, opined that the claimant suffered two grievous
injuries and underwent treatment for a period of two months as
in-patient in the Government Hospital, at Machilipatnam, awarded a
sum of Rs.65,000/- under the head pain and suffering and trauma as
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 7 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
a consequence of injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation and extra nourishment and also towards
miscellaneous expenditure, considering the fact that claimant is a
differently abled person and suffered two grievous injuries, which
includes a fracture of the ankle joint. In that view of matter, this
Court does not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of
amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for the
injuries suffered by the claimant.
15. The other contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is
that the Tribunal granted interest at 9% p.a., and therefore, it is
excessive. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
presentation of petition, till the date of deposit. The accident occurred
in the year 2012, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2013, and
the Appellant without admitting for just, fair and reasonable
compensation has been dragging the matter for the last 9 years. In
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir
Hussein Vs. Sabir1 which referred another judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy2 granted interest @ 9% p.a. In that view of
(2015) 7 SCC 2154
(2011) 14 SC 481
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 8 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
the matter, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of
petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. Accordingly,
this point is answered.
16. POINT No.3: To what relief?
In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, I do not find any
grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and,
therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award
dated 29.08.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.86/2013 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District Judge,
Machilipatnam. 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
18.01.2023
psk
BVLNC MACMA 711 of 2016
Page 9 of 9 Dt: 18.01.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.711 OF 2016
18th January, 2023
psk
