Lalam Venkateswarlu vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By Gm
2023 Latest Caselaw 4889 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 1954 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Award, dated 08.12.2011,

passed in M.V.O.P. No. 14 of 2010 on the file of the

Chairman,      Motor   Accidents   Claims    Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby,

the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,34,293/-

towards   total   compensation;    this   instant   Appeal   is

preferred by the Claimant claiming balance compensation

amount, as prayed in the petition.


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)   Sri. Lalam Venkateswarlu, [the 'claim petitioner']

filed the petition under Section 166 (A) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, [the 'M.V. Act'] against the respondent

claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for the injuries

sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on 10.05.2009 at about 3.30 A.M., due to rash and
                                   2



negligent    driving   of   the       1st   respondent   driver   of

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP28 Z 3733.


4)     Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 10.05.2009 at about 3.30 A.M., while the

petitioner was traveling in A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing

No. AP28 Z 3733, and when it reached Sugali Metta,

the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a

rash and negligent manner, lost control over the

speed of the bus, and hit to a hill on the road

turning, resulting in causing multiple injuries to the

petitioner.

ii. The Station House Officer, Panyam Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2009 against the

driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C., bus for the offence

punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 ['I.P.C.']. The respondent is the owner of the

offending bus; hence, the respondent is liable to pay

compensation to the petitioner.

5) The respondent filed the counter denying the claim of

the Claimant and further pleaded that no negligence can

be attributed against the driver of the offending bus, as the

driver never drove the said bus in a rash and negligent

manner resulting the accident and, among other grounds

urged, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident with the A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No. AP28 Z 3733 due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent?

(iii) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on

behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.19 and Ex.X1 were marked. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent.

8) At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the

material available on record, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of offending R.T.C. bus and

accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

an amount of Rs.4,34,293/- with proportionate costs and

interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. Aggrieved against the passing of less

compensation by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant

preferred the present appeal.

9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

10) Now, the point for determination is:

i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

ii) Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to the remaining balance compensation, as prayed for?

11) POINT NOS. (i) & (ii): On considering the evidence of

PW1 and so also coupled with Ex.A1 - certified copy of the

F.I.R., Ex.A2 - certified copy of the wound certificate and

Ex.A3 - certified copy of the charge-sheet, the Tribunal

arrived at a conclusion that the accident in question

occurred due to rash and negligent driving, on the part, of

the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, in which the petitioner

who travelled in the offending bus sustained grievous

injuries and he was hospitalized upto one month. The

Tribunal, by assailing reasons, came to the conclusion that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of offending R.T.C. bus. Therefore, I do not find

any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

12) Coming to the compensation, the petitioner, in order

to prove the claim, relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3

[Doctors] so also Ex.A2 [certified copy of wound certificate],

Ex.A4 [certified copy of Form-54], Ex.A19 [certified copy of

income tax returns for the year 2008-2009] and Ex.X1

[case sheet].

13) The material on record reveal that the petitioner

sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury and it

also shows that the accident was caused by the driver of

the R.T.C. bus, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded

Rs.20,000/- towards one grievous injury and Rs.3,000/-

towards one simple injury. Since, the petitioner sustained

two injuries, out of which one is grievous in nature, the

Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards 'pain and

suffering' and on considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3

coupled with Ex.A11 [medical bills], the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.3,96,293/- towards medical expenses. In

total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,34,293/-

and fastened the liability on the respondent against which

no appeal is filed by the respondents or no cross-objections

are filed by the respondent.

14) The contention of the claimant is that, because of the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, he

suffered disability of 20%, but the Tribunal failed to

consider the same. The material on record, which is

coupled with Ex.A14 - disability certificate issued by the

District Medical Board, Nandyal, which is supported by the

evidence of PW2 and PW3 [Doctors], clearly shows that the

petitioner is suffering with disability of 20%. The law is well

settled that, 'disability of a particular limb cannot be treated

as disability of whole body'.

15) On considering the entire material on record, I am of

the considered view that the disability suffered by the

petitioner is 10% only. The accident in question occurred

in the year 2009 and, therefore, in those days an

agricultural coolie of aged '45' years can easily earn

Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum.

Therefore, Rs.50,400/- [Rs.36,000/- x 10/100 x 14] is

awarded towards 10% permanent disability sustained by

the petitioner. In addition to the above, since the petitioner

sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury and

hospitalized upto one month, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is

awarded towards extra nourishment, attendant charges

and transport charges. In total, the appellant/claimant is

entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,89,693/-

16) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Consequently, the claim amount of Rs.4,34,293/- awarded

by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,89,693/-. Accordingly,

the appellant/claimant is entitled to the enhanced

compensation amount of Rs.55,400/- with interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. The respondent is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation of Rs.55,400/- with interest, as

ordered above, within two months from the date of this

judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is

entitled to withdraw the same along with interest thereon.

No order as to costs.

17) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date: 11.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1954 of 2014

.10.2023

sm