Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs P.S.Roja, Chittoor District
2023 Latest Caselaw 4 AP

BVLNC                                                     MACMA 502 of 2016
Page 1 of 12                                              Dt: 02.01.2023




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.502 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC,

challenging the award dated 05.01.2015 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.32/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-I Addl.District Judge, Chittoor, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein

the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation

of Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by her 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.10,00,000/- on account of the

injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 23.04.2011.

 BVLNC                                            MACMA 502 of 2016
Page 2 of 12                                     Dt: 02.01.2023

4. The facts would show that on 23.04.2011 the petitioner boarded

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 3790 at Kotha Road Bus Stop to go to

college, and at about 09.40 a.m. the bus was proceeding towards

Chittoor, and when it reached Bangapalli railway gate, the driver drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side

tamarind tree, as a result of which, the front portion of bus was badly

damaged, the inmates of bus sustained injuries and out of them, two

or three persons died and the petitioner who was standing in front of

bus sustained injuries on her abdomen and also sustained other

bleeding injuries all over body, she fell unconscious and shifted to

Government Hospital, Chittoor, and later she was shifted to CMC

Hospital, Vellore. SI of Police, Puthalapat P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.45/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304-A of

Indian Penal Code against the driver of APSRTC bus. Due to accident,

the petitioner sustained open would in right iliac region of abdomen

with evisceration of bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed

ischemic changes, and also sustained a fracture of left clavicle. She

underwent operation due to injury to abdomen and she could not

evacuate shit in the normal way. So, doctors inserted a separate bag

for collection of shit. On that advice of doctors, she admitted in

hospital again on 17.01.2012 and she was found developed an BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 3 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

anastigmatic dehiscence and required re-laparotomy and re-stoma.

The second surgery was conducted and she was diagnosed with

multiple intra-abdominal collections. The petitioner spent

Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment, transportation, medicines etc and still

she is using a separate bag for collection of shit. At the time of

accident, the petitioner was studying First Year B.Tech Course and

due to prolonged treatment, she could not attend and lost her

education.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written

statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to

manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of

the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, liability to

pay compensation, and contended that while the bus was coming in

slow and caution manner, one lorry which is going in front of the bus

was suddenly stopped and the driver of the bus turned the bus to right

side and dashed the road sided tamarind tree, and hence, the

petitioner sustained injuries. The driver of bus made his best efforts to

avoid the accident, but failed beyond his control. The petitioner spent

an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment is not correct

and she is put to strict proof of the same.

 BVLNC                                                 MACMA 502 of 2016
Page 4 of 12                                          Dt: 02.01.2023

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 3790?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and

got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9. On behalf of the

respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1

and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9 held that the

accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC

bus driver, and further taking into consideration the evidence of

P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 to X-9,

awarded a compensation of Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal

erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 5 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

of driver of the appellant/APSRTC and further, the Tribunal erred in

awarding a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- towards compensation, though the

claimant did not suffer any permanent disability.

10. In the light of above grounds urged in the appeal, the points that

would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the appellant/APSRTC?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive?

3. To what relief?

11. POINT No.1:

The contention of the claimant is that on 23.04.2011, the

claimant boarded APSRTC bus of the appellant at Kotha road bus stop

to go to college, and while so, at about 09.40 a.m. when the bus was

proceeding towards Chittoor on Chittoor - Kadapa high way road, the

driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, when

it reached a place near Bangapalli railway gate, and as a result, the

bus dashed a tamarind tree located by the side of the road, and as a

result, the passengers sustained injuries, and two or three of them

died, and the petitioner, who was standing in the bus sustained BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 6 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

grievous injuries on the abdomen and became unconscious and shifted

to Government Hospital, Chennai, and later to CMC Hospital, Vellore,

and the claimant due to injuries on the abdomen, suffered an open

wound in the right iliac region of the abdomen with evisceration of

bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed ischemic changes

and also suffered a fracture of left clavicle, and underwent operation,

but bowls were not functioning properly, and she could not pass

motion properly, and as a result, a bag is provided for passing of

motion, which is called 'colostomy', and she has to carry the bag

throughout her life, and therefore, she suffered loss of amenities in life,

and claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards just compensation,

which includes a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and

other expenditure, apart from damages for pain and suffering.

12. It is an admitted fact that police registered a case for the offence

punishable U/s.304-A, 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code against the

driver of the appellant/APSRTC bus, and conducted investigation and

laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the

appellant/APSRTC bus that the accident was occurred due to

negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus.

13. The claimant in support of her plea that the accident was

occurred due to negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 7 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

appellant, examined herself as P.W-1, and reiterated the above facts in

her chief-examination. The appellant did not elicit any material to say

that the accident was occurred as a lorry was stopped suddenly in

front of the bus, and that the driver of the bus in order to avoid

collision with lorry, turned the bus towards other side and dashed the

tamarind tree. The appellant did not examine its driver to speak the

way in which the accident was occurred. The claimant filed copy of

police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-2; it supports the version of

P.W-1 only. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any

ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident

was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the

appellant/APSRTC bus. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14. POINT No.2:

The claimant in her evidence deposed that she sustained an

open wound in the right iliac region of the abdomen with evisceration

of bowl loops and the bowel (intestines) loops showed ischemic

changes and also sustained a fracture of left clavicle, and she was

admitted in CMC, Vellore for 10 days and she underwent operation

called Hartmann's procedure, and on account of the injury, bowls are

not functioning properly, and as a result, she could not evacuate

motion in normal way, and therefore, a bag was separately inserted for BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 8 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

collection of motion, and she has to carry the bag throughout her life

and even the second surgery conducted for anastigmatic dehiscence on

17.01.2012 also not solved the problem, and she also joined in CMC

Hospital, Vellore, for 21 days in February, 2012 for further treatment,

and she has incurred Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment, transportation and

medicines etc., which are proved by Ex.A-7 supported by Ex.A-5,

Ex.A-6 as well as Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 documents, and further, she was

studying B.Tech course at the time of accident and she could not

attend college due to the above injuries, and as a result, she could not

get marks in first year lab examinations, and also second year internal

examinations and therefore, she could not get good percentage of

marks in the final year, and lost her bright future and therefore, she

claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in all towards compensation.

15. The appellant in her cross-examination did not elicit anything

contra. The evidence of the claimant discloses that she was aged 21

years and an engineering student at the time of accident.

16. The claimant in support of her evidence examined Dr.Gayathri

Deshpande as P.W-2. Her evidence discloses that she is working as

Assistant Professor in CMC Hospital, Vellore, and the claimant was

admitted in their hospital on 23.04.2011 covered by Exs.X-1 to X-4

discharge summaries, as well as Exs.X-5 to X-9 patient case records, BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 9 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

and as per the record of the hospital, the claimant was admitted in

their hospital at different spells, and surgeries were conducted and

there was an open would in the abdomen and left clavicle fracture.

Because of damage caused to the intestines, a separate bag is

provided, which is called 'colostomy' for passing of motion, and the

patient may have to carry the bag throughout her life, and Ex.A-7

bunch of medical bills were issued by their hospital towards

expenditure incurred by the patient for the treatment and operations

conducted in the hospital. The appellant/APSRTC did not elicit

anything during the cross-examination of P.W-2 to discredit the

testimony of P.W-2.

17. P.W-2 categorically deposed that during series of operations,

they tried to remove the bag, but patient developed complications, and

as such, it could not be done, and they are not sure whether the bag

can be removed in future even if further treatment is given, and the

consolidated bill will be issued at the time of discharge. Therefore, the

evidence of P.W-2 corroborates the evidence of P.W-1 about the

inconvenience and discomfort faced by the claimant on account of the

open would sustained by her on the abdomen, which caused damage

to her bowls, which prevented passage of motion normally, and

established that the claimant requires a bag throughout her life to BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 10 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

pass motion. Admittedly, the claimant is a young girl aged around 22

years and unmarried at the time of accident. The discomfort faced by

the claimant would definitely hamper her marriage prospects. She has

to suffer lot of inconvenience and discomfort throughout her life. The

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head loss of

amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Unfortunately the

appellant/APSRTC is questioning the said amount also, as excessive

amount.

18. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- towards expenses

relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation,

nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure head, against the

claim of Rs.3,00,000/- upon considering Ex.A-7 medical bills produced

by the claimant.

19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

damage for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and

treatment undergone by her this Court do not find any ground to

interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head.

20. In the light of above discussion, the amount of Rs.9,25,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as excessive, in view of the BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 11 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar and another1. Accordingly, this point is answered.

21. POINT No.3: To what relief?

In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, there are no

grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore,

the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award

05.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.32/2013 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Chittoor. 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 02.01.2023

psk

2011 (1) SCC 343 BVLNC MACMA 502 of 2016 Page 12 of 12 Dt: 02.01.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.502 OF 2016

2nd January, 2023

psk