S. Gokari Bee vs The Managing Directorcumvice ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5204 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 2572 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Decree and Order, dated

20.04.2012, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 90 of 2008 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby, the Tribunal

awarded    compensation    of    Rs.90,446/-     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)   Smt. S. Gokari Bee, [the 'claim petitioner'] filed the

petition under Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor

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

respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C.      claiming    compensation          of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 26.02.2007 at about 6.30
                               2



P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent

driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP10 Z 4529.


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as

follows: -

i. On 26.02.2007, while the Petitioner along with her

family members reached Polakal Village from Gudur

and proceeding towards her house from the bus

stand, the driver of the respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. bus

bearing registration No. AP10 Z 4529 came in a rash

and negligent manner, without blowing horn, hit the

petitioner, resultantly the petitioner fell down and her

right leg came under the front wheel of the bus and

got crushed and she also sustained multiple injuries.

The Police registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2007

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 counter 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 petitioner and prays

to dismiss the claim 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 dated 26.02.2007 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP10 Z 4529?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount from the respondent?

(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.A5 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of

respondent, RW1 was examined, however no documentary

evidence 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.90,446/- with proportionate costs and

interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization. Aggrieved against the order passed by

the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner 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 her self-testimony

as PW1. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that, while the

Petitioner was going to her house at Polakal Village, an

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP10 Z 4529

came in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing

horn, and hit the petitioner, resultantly the right leg of the

petitioner came under the front wheel and got crushed.

Ex.A1 - certified copy of F.I.R. goes to show that a crime

was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of

Police laid charge-sheet fixing the liability against the

driver of the offending vehicle R.T.C. bus.

12) On appreciation of the entire material on record and

on considering Ex.A1 - F.I.R., Ex.A3 - charge-sheet, the

Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the accident in

question occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the

part of the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, in

which the petitioner sustained crush injury. I do not find

any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13) Coming to the compensation, the claim of the

petitioner is that the petitioner used to earn Rs.60/- per

day. The accident in question occurred in the year 2007. In

those days, a person aged about 42 years can easily earn

Rs.60/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income was

arrived at Rs.1,800/- per month i.e., Rs.21,600/- per

annum [Rs.1,800/- x 12]. The material on record clearly

reveals that, because of the accident, the petitioner

sustained crush injury and the right leg of the petitioner

was crushed and the doctor operated the petitioner's leg

and removed the foot till ankle. Therefore, on considering

Ex.A4 - Orthopedically Handicapped Certificate coupled

with the evidence of PW2 and PW3, the Tribunal rightly

came to a conclusion that the petitioner is suffering with

50% disability. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,40,400/-

[Rs.21,600/- x 50/100 x 13] is rightly awarded towards

50% permanent disability.

14) The evidence of PW2 and PW3 coupled with Ex.A5 -

bunch of medical bills goes to show that the petitioner

spent an amount of Rs.4,646/- towards medical expenses.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount

under the head 'medical expenses'. The oral and

documentary evidence on record clearly reveals that the

petitioner sustained crush injury in the accident in

question and she was operated to the leg and removed the

foot till ankle. Therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is

awarded towards 'pain and suffering'; an amount of

Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of 'nutrition of food

and attendant charges' and so also 'transport expenses'.

An amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'loss of

amenities', since the petitioner sustained crush injury and

her right leg was amputated and removed the foot till

ankle. Therefore, in total, the claimant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.1,75,046/-.

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

Consequently, the claim amount of Rs.90,446/- awarded

by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,75,046/-. Accordingly,

the appellant/claimant is entitled to the enhanced

compensation amount of Rs.84,600/- 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.84,600/- 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 therein. 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: 30.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2572 of 2014

.10.2023

sm