The Apsrtc., vs D.Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 5159 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 2427 of 2013

JUDGMENT: -

1)     Aggrieved by the impugned Order and Decree, dated,

13.08.2012, passed in O.P. No. 242 of 2011 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, whereby, a claim

of Rs.1,04,200/- awarded by the Tribunal along with

interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant towards

compensation, this instant appeal is preferred by the

respondent - A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,

questioning the legal validity of the Order of 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)     Smt. Derangula Devi [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.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained

by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

03.06.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the
                                 2


respondent driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP10 Z

9444.


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as

follows: -

i. On 03.06.2011 at about 5.00 P.M., while the

petitioner was travelling in a auto bearing registration

No.AP04 Y 0910 and when the auto reached near

Chittiboyanapalle Village, the driver of the

respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration

No.AP10 Z 9444 coming from Rayachoti towards

Gurramkonda, drove the bus in a rash and negligent

manner, without taking proper care and caution,

dashed against the auto, due to which, the petitioner

sustained bleeding injuries and grievous injuries all

over her body. The Police have registered a case

against the driver of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus under the relevant provision of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. The respondent is

the owner of the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. 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

since the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the

auto bearing registration No. AP04 Y 0910 and prays 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 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP10 Z 9444 which resulted in the injuries to the petitioner by name Derangula Devi?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount?

iii) To what relief?

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

behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf the

respondent, RW1 was examined, however, no documentary

evidence got adduced.

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.1,04,200/- with interest at 9% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/A.P. State Road

Transport Corporation preferred the present Appeal.

9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

10) Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court, if so, to what extent?

11) POINT: The case of the claimant is that, on

03.06.2011 at about 5.00 P.M., while the petitioner was

travelling in a auto bearing registration No.AP04 Y 0910

and when the auto reached near Chittiboyanapalle Village,

the driver of the respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing

registration No.AP10 Z 9444 coming from Rayachoti

towards Gurramkonda, drove the bus in a rash and

negligent manner, without taking proper care and caution,

dashed against the auto, due to which, the petitioner

sustained bleeding and grievous injuries all over her body.

12) 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 her 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.

13) Coming to the compensation, the petitioner is

claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In order to prove

the injuries, the petitioner relied on Ex.A3 - certified copy

of the wound certificate, Ex.A4 - certified copy of X-ray,

Ex.A5 - bunch of medical bills, Ex.A6 - disability

certificate, Ex.A7 - transportation bills, Ex.X1 - two X-rays

and so also relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 - the

doctors who treated the petitioner. The material on record

reveals that, as the petitioner sustained two grievous

injuries, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-

[Rs.15,000/- x 2] to the petitioner. The Tribunal also

awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards 'pain and

suffering' for the three simple injuries. By taking notional

income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e.,

Rs.36,000/- per annum and the age of the petitioner as 28

years, the Tribunal by applying the relevant multiplier of

'17' awarded an amount of Rs.61,200/- towards 'loss of

income' for the 10% disability sustained by the petitioner.

The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards 'nominal expenses' as the petitioner would have

incurred for treatment, transportation, extra-nourishment,

diet and attendant charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded

total compensation of Rs.1,04,200/-. The Tribunal rightly

awarded the above compensation by giving cogent reasons.

I do not find any flaw or illegality in awarding the above

compensation to the petitioner by the Tribunal.

14) The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/A.P.

State Road Transport Corporation would submit that the

interest awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum, which

is excessive in nature.

15) In so-far-as awarding of interest @ 9% per annum is

concerned, since the accident took place in the year 2011,

this Court find merit in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal awarded

exorbitant rate of interest and, therefore, the same has to

be reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

16) Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of and the

Decree and Order, dated 13.08.2012, passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in O.P. No.242 of

2011 is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9%

per annum to 7.5% per annum. The order of the Tribunal

in all other respects shall remain intact. 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: 20.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2427 of 2013

20.10.2023

sm