Apsrtc vs Katru Sangeetha Rao Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 4669 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Apsrtc vs Katru Sangeetha Rao Another on 24 June, 2024

APHC010107972016

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                                                                      3364
                         MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
                            TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU

 MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3215 OF 2016

Between:
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (APSRTC),
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing
Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.   ---                Appellant

                                         and
1. Katru Sangeetha Rao,
   S/o.Babu Rao,
   Aged about 20 Years,
   Permanent R/o. Perampeta,
   Jangareddygudem Mandal,
   West Godavari District,
   Now residing at H.No.16B-12-1,
   Venugopalaswamy Street,
   Tangellamudi, 39th Division, Eluru,
   West Godavari District.

2. Bhukya Rajeswara Rao,
   S/o.Chinna, Aged 38 Years,
   Driver of APSRTC Bus Bearing
   No.AP-28-Z-3988, E.No.7-936,
   C/o.Depot Manager, APSRTC,
   Jangareddigudem,
   West Godavari District.               ---           Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar

The Court made the following Judgment:

AVRB,J

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 12.02.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.154 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with a claim of compensation made by the claimant for Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 19.09.2014, awarded a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- towards compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 19.09.2014 at about 06:00 p.m. the petitioner and two others while returning to Perampet Village on a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BP 4335 reached near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Guravaigudem of Jangareddygudem Mandal at about 07:30 p.m. At that time, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3988 being driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the traffic and without taking proper precautions dashed against the motorcycle from his behind. As a result the petitioner and others sustained severe injuries. He was shifted to Area Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem. Later, he was referred to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. It is only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent the

AVRB,J

accident was occurred. He underwent major operation to his right leg and his right leg was amputated up to the knee and he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure.

4. The first respondent is driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3988. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle in question having valid and subsisting vehicular documents. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner.

5. The SHO of Lakkavaram P.S. registered the accident as a case in Crime No.85 of 2014 for the offences under sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the first respondent and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the first respondent.

6. First respondent/driver of the vehicle remained ex parte.

7. Second respondent/APSRTC filed written statement denying the material averments in the petition and also its liability to pay compensation contending that the accident occurred was because of rash and negligent driving of rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BP 4335. At that time three persons were travelling on the motorcycle and the person who was driving the motorcycle was in a drunken state and tried to overtake the Bus in question and dashed against the Tractor coming on the opposite direction with a single light. It is due to hitting by the tractor the petitioner and other persons fell on the road. There is no involvement of the RTC Bus in the accident. By manipulating the Police a false case is registered

AVRB,J

against the first respondent who is no way connected with the accident. The entire negligence is on the part of rider of motorcycle, as such the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the O.P. The O.P. is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner has to prove the negligence on the part of the first respondent at the time of accident and also the age and income of the petitioner. The cause of action is baseless and incorrect, compensation claimed is highly excessive and the income and age of the petitioner is disputed.

8. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 19.09.2014 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3988 by first respondent and whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1, who was no other than the first respondent, being the driver of the offending vehicle, was examined but no documents were marked.

AVRB,J

10. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the APSRTC Bus i.e., the first respondent and in the accident, the petitioner received injuries, which resulted into amputation of his right leg below the knee, as such awarded a sum of Rs.6,47,000/-. Though the claimant claimed that he is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- but the Tribunal relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh1 awarded the aforesaid amount.

11. The un-successful second respondent/APSRTC, feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid award, filed the present Appeal.

12. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is:

Whether the Award of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.154 of 2015, dated 12.02.2016, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

(2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC)

AVRB,J

POINT:

13. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC, would canvass a contention that the accident was occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the claimant with triple riding and they hit the Auto or the Tractor which was coming in their opposite direction. They managed the Police and ultimately got laid a charge sheet. Even otherwise, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Again it awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards nervous shock and loss of amenities and the compensation awarded is excessive, which needs to be reduced.

14. Sri S. Srikanth, learned counsel, representing Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, would contend that there was amputation of right leg of the claimant below the knee and the compensation awarded was not at all excessive. The Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the first respondent alleging that he caused injuries to the claimant by his negligent act and the Award of the Tribunal needs no interference. In support of his contention that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just reasonable relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another2, Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UP State Road

(2023) 3 SCC 439

AVRB,J

Transport Corporation3 and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others4.

15. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, who was no other than the claimant, he put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings and through his examination, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked.

16. Petitioner got examined PWs.2 and PW.3 - medical officers in support of his case. Though PW.1 was subjected to cross- examination alleging that he was responsible for the accident, the defence of the first respondent remained a mere defence. RW.1 though stepped into the witness box but there is no dispute that he was an accused in Ex.A-4 - charge sheet filed by the Police alleging that he drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike of the petitioner when he was moving along with others behind its back. So, it is not a case of contributory negligence. It is very difficult to accept the contention of the APSRTC that the petitioner managed the Police and got filed a false charge sheet. If really, there was no fault on the part of the first respondent/driver in driving the APSRTC bus, definitely he would have agitated against the allegations in the charge sheet. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the APSRTC Bus.

17. Now, coming to the nature of injuries received by the petitioner, petitioner received two grievous injuries; one is below

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701

(2022) 13 SCC 790

AVRB,J

right knee and all muscles gone away and other is fracture of tibia and fibula. As seen from the testimony of PW.2, the disability received by the petitioner on account of the post traumatic below knee, amputation of right lower limb was 75%. The factum of amputation of right lower limb was not in dispute. The Tribunal considering the same awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for two grievous injuries, thereby 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and further 50,000/- towards nervous shock and loss of amenities. The contention of the appellant that there was duplicity in awarding such compensation is devoid of merits. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure considering the nature of injuries. The Tribunal considered the income of the claimant on notional theory and awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- for a period of three months towards of loss of earnings i.e., hospitalization period and further Rs.10,000/- towards food and nutrition and it awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. The aforesaid compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is quite reasonable.

18. As seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidram (2nd supra), it is relating to functional disability and in the case on hand, the petitioner proved the functional disability. Further in Pappu Deo Yadav (4th supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court stressed the need of awarding just compensation and in my considered view, the Tribunal rightly awarded just compensation. Coming to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (3rd supra), it is relating to the disability of an injured which adds discrimination in the society. Thus, the aforesaid three

AVRB,J

decisions cited by learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant supports his contention that the Award of the Tribunal needs no interference.

19. With regard to the disability, the Tribunal considered the disability as that of 50% instead of 75%, as claimed by the petitioner. So, the Tribunal made a judicial exercise to ascertain the whole body disability as that of 50%. The Tribunal considering the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- p.m. and following the dictum in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar5 applied appropriate multiplier to arrive at the figure of Rs.5,13,000/- towards loss of future earnings. So, the overall compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is totally justifiable and it is reasonable.

20. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the Award, dated 12.02.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.154 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appellant/second respondent shall deposit the rest of the compensation amount, if any, within a period of one month from this date.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 24.06.2024 DSH

(2014) ACJ 653