The A.P.S.R.T.C. vs Uppu Jagannadham Janganadha
2023 Latest Caselaw 4629 AP

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
               M.A.C.M.A.NO.3936 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated

27.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.66 of 2011, on the file of

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District

Judge, Rayachoty, whereby a claim of Rs.1,78,600/- was

awarded towards total compensation to the claimant, this

instant appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation, questioning the legal validity of the

Award passed by the Tribunal.

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 claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation of

Rs.3,50,000/- in a Motor Vehicles Road Accident that

occurred on 01.05.2009.

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:-

5. On 01.05.2009, the petitioner was travelling on his

motorcycle from his village Peddakoddivandlapalli to

Rayachoty, at about 11.30 a.m., when he reached near

Malluruvandlapalli Village on Dudyala-Rayachoty road the

RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444 belongs to Rayachoty

Depot, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle.

As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained

severe grievous injuries. A case was registered against the

driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus. After

completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against

the driver of the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus.

6. The respondent filed a written statement denying the

claim of the claimant and pleaded that the accident in

question occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the

rider of the 2 wheeler.

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

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

Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: -

1. Whether the petitioner met with road accident and sustained injuries on 01.05.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444 of respondent as pleaded?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount?

3. To what relief?

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

PWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Ex.A.1 to A.10. On

behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence

was adduced.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the

entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.1,78,600/- towards total compensation. Aggrieved the

same, the A.P.S.R.T.C filed this instant appeal, questioning

the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

10. Heard Sri K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel

for A.P.S.R.T.C and Sri D. Kondanda Ramireddy, learned

counsel for the respondent/claimant.

11. Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

POINT:

12. The case of the claimant is that he is travelling on his

motorcycle, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus belongs to Rayachoty

Depot, which dashed to his vehicle he fell down and

sustained injuries in the said accident. The material on

record clearly reveals that the accident in question occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9444.

The Tribunal also came to a conclusion. I do not find any

illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

13. Coming to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the

claimant produced Ex.A.2 certified copy of wound certificate.

As per the Ex.A.2, the petitioner sustained five simple injuries

and one grievous injury of fracture of right thigh and also

relied on discharge summary Ex.A.4 Suraksha Hospital

Tirupathi. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner

sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of 3rd rib and

fracture of right maxilla. As per the C T scan of brain report,

the petitioner was found having fracture in the right

zygomatic arch posteriorly. In order to prove the injuries, the

petitioner relied on the evidence of Dr. B.Hema Kumar Reddy,

Orthopedic Surgeon, Tirupathi in Suraksha Hospital. As per

the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner was admitted as

inpatient on 02.05.2009 he was treated till 22.05.2009 and

again he came with pain at right hip joint and X-ray was

taken and again he was admitted as inpatient on 07.03.2011

and the operation was conducted to him, the screw was also

removed on the same day and discharged on 16.03.2011.

The evidence of P.W.2, clearly goes to show that the petitioner

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

underwent treatment as inpatient approximately for 30 days.

On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal

also arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is suffering

with disability of 10%. Even though the Doctor opined that

the disability is of 25%, the Tribunal by assailing reasons

arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is suffering with

10% disability and awarded an amount of Rs.57,600/-

towards permanent disability (Rs.36,000/- x 10% x 16 =

Rs.57,600/-). I do not find any illegality in awarding the said

compensation under the head of permanent disability. On

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal

rightly awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and

suffering, an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards transportation

and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges

during the period of treatment. On considering the medical

bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/-

towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs.5,000/-

towards extra nourishment of food.

VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2014

14. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.1,78,600/- towards total compensation along with interest

@ 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of

realization. I do not find any illegality in the said finding

given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award passed by the

Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and there is no

need to interfere.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

As sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated: 03.10.2023.

CVD