The vs Xiii Additional District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3219 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.304 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2009

on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District

and the respondent is respondent in the said case.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the

appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim

application.

3. The aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2009 was filed by the

claimant, under Sections 140 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act

and read with Rules 455 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with

interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 06.10.2008 at about 06:45 p.m at Guntur R.T.C Bus

stand while the claimant was getting ready to board the R.T.C

Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2336, in the mean while the driver of

the Bus driven the Bus in a rash and negligent manner towards

platform, as a result the front tyre of the Bus ran over the left

leg foot of the claimant, causing fracture of the left leg ankle

and also crush injury to the left foot and other multiple injuries,

and he was immediately shifted to Government General

Hospital, Guntur where he was given first aid and on the same

day for better treatment he was shifted to Amulya Nursing

Home, Narasaraopet which is a private hospital at

Narasaraopet. A case in Crime No.144/2008 was registered

against the driver of the offending vehicle Bus under

Section 337 I.P.C.

5. The respondent filed a written statement by denying the

claim of claimant and further pleaded that the accident was

occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle Bus.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was caused due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2336

causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled

to compensation? if so, to what amount and

against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Ex.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of respondents, no

evidence was adduced by the respondent.

8. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,031/- along with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimant towards total

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor

vehicle accident occurred on 06.10.2008. Aggrieved by the

said decree and order passed by the Tribunal, the claimant

filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Now, the points for determination is:

1) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs

any interference?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement

of compensation as prayed for?

POINTS:

11. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle Bus, the claimant relied on his

self testimony as P.W.1. He deposed in his evidence about

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C Bus. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2

certified copy of the Charge Sheet clearly proves about the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C Bus.

12. The material on record reveals that the accident was

occurred while the claimant was getting ready to board the

R.T.C Bus bearing No. AP 11Z 2336 at Guntur R.T.C Bus

stand. As seen from the material on record, after investigating

the crime, the concerned Police laid Charge Sheet under

Ex.A2 by fixing the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C Bus. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with EX.A1 and A2 clearly proves that the

accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C Bus only. But the Tribunal

came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C Bus and also there is some negligence on the

part of the claimant also, by the time of boarding into the Bus.

Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that there is

a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that the accident is

occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending Bus only.

13. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,062/- towards total

medical expenses by considering the medical bills A4, A5 and

A8. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the

Tribunal arrived that the claimant is suffering with disability of

20% on the left foot of P.W.1. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.20,000/- towards disability, and an amount of

Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, since the

claimant sustained grievous injuries, an amount of Rs.5,000/-

is awarded towards extra nourishment and attendant charges

by the Tribunal. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.70,062/- towards compensation. The Tribunal held in its

order that the claimant is entitled to half of the amount i.e.,

Rs.35,031/- due to the 50% contributory negligence on the part

of the Claimant. As noticed supra, the accident is occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

A.P.S.R.T.C Bus only, therefore, question of deducting the

50% from the compensation amount of Rs.70,062/- does not

arise. Since there is no contributory negligence on the part of

the claimant, there are some merits in the contention raised by

the learned counsel for the appellant. From the foregoing

discussion, the appellant is entitled total claim of Rs.70,062/-

from the respondent towards compensation.

14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing

the compensation granted by the Tribunal for an amount of

Rs.35,031/- to Rs.70,062/- and the claimant is entitled for

enhanced compensation of Rs.35,031/- along with interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum. Respondent is directed to deposit

the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,031/- with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum within two (2) months before the

Tribunal from the date of this Judgment. On such deposit, the

claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Dt.26.06.2023 ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.304 of 2014

Dt.26.06.2023

ANI