Yaddanapudi Bharath Kumar, vs Nagidi Venkateswara Rao,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4291 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3389 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.06.2014 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- XIV Additional District

Judge, Vijayawada, passed in M.V.O.P.No.669 of 2012, whereby

the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1

and 2, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant/ claimant for

enhancement of claim amount.

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 section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

15.03.2012.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

                                    2                             VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 3389 of 2014

The petitioner is the resident of Kanuru village of Penamaluru

Mandal in Krishna District. On 15.03.2012 at about 11.45 a.m.,

while the petitioner was going towards Benz Circle from

Kamaiahthopu Center in an auto bearing No.AP 37Y 5332 and

when the said auto reached near Patamata High School road center

near the traffic signal point, the driver of the said auto stopped the

auto due to red signal in the traffic signals, meanwhile the first

respondent, who is the driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus bearing No.AP 11Z 7112,

hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner with high speed, came behind the said

auto and dashed against the auto, resulting which, the petitioner,

who was travelling in the said auto, sustained multiple grievous

injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-

towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and 3 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

claimant.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.03.2012 at about 11.45 hours near High School road center, Bandar road, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP11Z 7112?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed? If so, from 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 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A11 and Ex.X1 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence

was adduced on behalf of the second respondent.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal 4 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to the claimant towards

compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the

present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation

amount.

9. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the

record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus i.e., first respondent herein, the petitioner

relied on his self-testimony as PW1 and so also relied on Ex.A1

copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 copy of charge sheet.

The evidence of PW1 clearly shows about the rash and negligent 5 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 also

support the same. The material on record reveals that the accident

in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

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

fractures. The Tribunal also gave the same finding. Therefore,

there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal

awarded total compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to the claimant. The

contention of the appellant/ claimant is that the claimant was

working as a car driver and earing an amount of Rs.6,000/- per

month by the date of accident. The Tribunal held in its order that

since the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence, the

monthly income of the injured was assessed as Rs.3,000/- per

month. The contention of the claimant is that he is working as a car

driver, the same is not at all disputed by the respondents. The

accident in question occurred in the year, 2012. In those days, an

ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day.

Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner is arrived at 6 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

Rs.4,000/- per month. The contention of the claimant is that in the

said accident, he sustained a major crush injury to his right leg from

below knee to the ankle and he sustained a fracture to his left leg.

In order to prove the same, the petitioner relied on a documentary

evidence. As per the evidence of PW2 Dr.B.Hari Krishna, the

petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his both legs. The Tribunal

in its order held that the petitioner has to take bed rest for a period

of not less than 6 months to get complete recovery from the injuries

sustained in the accident in question. So the claimant is entitled an

amount of Rs.24,000/-, (for a period of six months @ Rs.4,000/- per

month) towards loss of earnings. Since the petitioner sustained

multiple fracture and grievous injuries, the claimant is entitled an

amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of compensation for pain and

suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- only under the said

head. Therefore, the same is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to

Rs.40,000/-. On considering the evidence of PW2 and on

considering the Ex.A7 final medical bill, the Tribunal rightly awarded

an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- towards medical expenses. The

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant

charges. As stated supra, the petitioner sustained severe multiple 7 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

fractures and due to that he bed ridden at least for a period of six

months. Therefore, an amount of Rs.18,000/- is awarded instead of

Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges (for a period of six months @

Rs.3,000/- per month). The Tribunal granted an amount of

Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment of food, the same is

enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, since the petitioner sustained multiple

fractures. The petitioner is also entitled an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards transport expenses. In total the claimant/ appellant is

entitled an amount of Rs.2,67,000/- towards compensation.

13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order

dated 13.06.2014 passed in MVOP No.669/2012 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIV Additional District Judge,

Vijayawada, consequently, the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.2,10,000/- to Rs.2,67,000/-. The petitioner is entitled the

enhanced compensation of Rs.57,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from

the date of petition, till the date of realization. The second

respondent/ A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal

within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, 8 VGKRJ MACMA 3389 of 2014

the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued

interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: .09.2023.

sj
                          9                            VGKRJ
                                           MACMA 3389 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.3389 of 2014

.09.2023

sj