Shaik Chand Basha Chan Basha vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5090 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 570 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Decree and Order, dated

07.02.2012, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 808 of 2007 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

Kadapa, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.1,86,800/- 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. Shaik Chand Basha @ Chan Basha, [the 'claim

petitioner'] filed the petition under Section 166 of the

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

respondent claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 26.05.2006 at about 6.30 A.M., due to rash
                              2



and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP11 Z 1102.


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 26.05.2006, while the Petitioner and another

person was going on motorcycle bearing registration

No. AP04 G 9557 slowly on the extreme left side of

the road and when they reached near Anjaneya

Swamy Temple, the bus bearing registration No. AP11

Z 1102 belonging to the respondent came in an

opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle,

resulting the petitioner and another sustained severe

injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.33

of 2006 against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C., bus

under the relevant provisions 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/A.P.S.R.T.C. filed written statement

denying the claim of the claimant. The respondent pleaded

that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation and

the entire negligence is on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle bearing registration No. AP04 G 9557.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle?

(ii) Whether R.1's rider was having valid license at the time of the accident?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so for what amount and from whom?

(iv) To what relief?

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

behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 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.1,86,800/- with proportionate costs and

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

date of deposit. Aggrieved against the order passed by the

Tribunal, the appellants/petitioners preferred the present

appeal for claiming remaining balance of compensation

amount.

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): In order to prove rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, the petitioner relied on his testimony as

PW1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 - certified

copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A2 - certified copy of charge-sheet

clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of the

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

Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion. Therefore, I

do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

12) Coming to the compensation, the petitioner is

claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-. In order to prove

the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW2 -

the doctor who treated the petitioner and so also Ex.A3 to

Ex.A7. The material on record reveals that the petitioner

sustained three simple injuries and two grievous injuries.

The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons awarded

Rs.40,000/- for 'pain and suffering' for all the injuries. On

considering Ex.A4 - medical bills coupled with the evidence

of PW2, the Tribunal Rightly awarded Rs.45,000/- towards

medical expenses.

13) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that, as per the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A5 - disability

certificate issued by the doctor, the petitioner is suffering

with disability of 35%, but the Tribunal considered the

disability as 15% only and the same has to be modified. On

considering the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A5 [disability

certificate], I am of the considered view that the disability

suffered by the petitioner is arrived at 20%, since the

disability sustained by the petitioner is not a disability to

the whole body. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,29,600/-

was awarded under the head of 20% disability

[Rs.36,000/- x 20/100 x 18].

14) As stated supra, the claimant is entitled to an

amount of Rs.1,29,600/- towards permanent disability of

20%, since the notional income of the petitioner is arrived

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

multiplies by '18' taking into consideration of age of

petitioner. On considering the evidence on record, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards 'transportation

charges'; Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Since,

the petitioner sustained two grievous and three simple

injuries and he was hospitalized for a considerable period,

therefore, I am of the view that it is desirable to award

Rs.7,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.10,000/-

towards extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards

attendant charges. In total, the appellant/claimant is

entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,46,600/-.

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

Consequently, the claim amount of Rs.1,86,800/- awarded

by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,36,600/-. Accordingly,

the appellant/claimant is entitled to the enhanced

compensation amount of Rs.49,800/- with interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. The respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to

deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.49,800/- 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.

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

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 18.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 570 of 2014

.10.2023

sm