Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Depot Manager Apsrtc vs Kota Mohan Simhadri Appala Swamy on 1 May, 2024
APHC010025702020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND
TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 68/2020
Between:
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Rural Depot,
Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. Managing Director, APSRTC Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. Kota Mohan Simhadri Appalaswamy, S/o Srirama Murthy, aged
about 46 years, working as Grade-I Mechanic E.No.484282,
APSRTC Visakhapatnam Rural Depot, Maddilapalem,
Visakhapatnam, residing at D.No.1-33023, Aadarsh Nagar, Pedda
Waltair, Visakhapatnam-530 017.
2. Punnam Raju Chandra Mouli, S/o late Raghavendra Rao, aged 38
years, Mechanic, E.No.755626, APSRTC Rural Depot,
Maddilapalem, residing at MIG-174, Sanketika Engineering College
Road, Opposite Alwardas Park, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M. Palem,
Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENTS:
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 04.09.2019 in
M.O.P.No.958 of 2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam
("Tribunal" for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the claimant on account of
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred
on 18.01.2014, awarded a sum of R s.3,40,000/-.
2) The parties to this MACMA 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 the claimant is
permanent resident of Adarsh Nagar, Peda Waltair. He worked as
Grade-I mechanic E.No.848282 in APSRTC, Maddilapalem,
Visakhapatnam Rural Depot. On 18.01.2014 at 10-45 a.m., he was
attending his duty of daily maintenance of Volvo bus. After completion of
the work, he was coming out of the pit. At that time, the first respondent,
who is another mechanic, without having heavy vehicle driving licence
drove the APSRTC Volvo bus bearing No.A.P.21-Z-2624 (hereinafter will
be referred to as "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner
while talking in a cell phone without noticing the claimant coming out of
the pit in reckless manner and caused the accident. Bumper of the
offending bus hit the claimant and he received multiple fractures, crush
injuries to the neck and nervous system. He was shifted to RTC
dispensary. As per the advice of the medical officer, he was shifted to
Aditya Hospital, Rajahmundry and admitted as inpatient on 21.01.2014
and discharged on 30.01.2014. He was advised to take treatment in
higher medical centre. Then he was shifted to RTC Hospital, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad and thereafter to NIMS, Hyderabad. He was admitted on
14.02.2014. He underwent surgery on 19.02.2014 and discharged on
24.02.2014. On receiving report from the claimant, the Station House
Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered FIR in Crime
No.23 of 2014 against the first respondent under Section 338 of the
Indian Penal Code and after investigation filed charge sheet before the IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.370
of 2014. The accident occurred was due to the negligence of the first
respondent. The claimant spent huge expenditure. He sustained
disability. Hence, the claim for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4) A counter was filed on behalf of the first respondent
contending in substance that he is not the driver. He is a mechanic
working as claimant in second and third respondent Corporation. The
claimant had previous ailment of cervical spondylitis and that he is taking
treatment in APSRTC Hospital and private hospitals. Taking advantage
of the previous ailment, he concocted a story as if a mishap was
occurred in the garage. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
5) The second respondent got filed a counter and the third
respondent adopted the same and the contention of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 is that there was contributory negligence on both sides.
After the accident, the claimant engaged two other vehicles. The claimant
was having neck pain also. He did not make complaint properly. He
made complaint after three weeks of the date of accident. He was given
free treatment in APSRTC as per rules. The compensation claimed is
excessive. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.
6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal settled the
following issues for trail:
(1) Whether the claimant sustained injuries in motor accident
occurred on 18.01.2014 due to rash and negligent act of the first
respondent while driving APSRTC Volvo bus bearing No.A.P.29-Z-
2624?
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from which of the respondent?
(3) To what relief?
7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant,
P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked. On behalf of
the respondents, the first respondent himself examined as R.W.1, but no
documents were marked.
8) The Tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence held that the accident occurred was on
account of rash and negligent act of the first respondent and awarded a
sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation. The unsuccessful respondent
Nos.2 and 3 feeling aggrieved of the award, filed the present MACMA.
9) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for
determination is whether the award, dated 04.08.2019 in M.O.P.No.958
of 2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is sustainable under
law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the
compensation?
POINT:-
10) Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the appellants,
would contend that there was no evidence to prove that the accident
occurred was on account of rash and negligent act of the first
respondent. He would further contend that the tribunal without there
being any medical bills, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical
expenditure and without there being any disability certificate, awarded
Rs.70,000/- and further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head
of medicines and extra nourishment. Further the tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The compensation awarded
was in duplicity, as such, award of the tribunal needs to be interfered.
11) Sri I. Sai Gopi Manoj Krishna, learned counsel, representing
learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, though initially sought
time, later he did not advance the arguments, as such, the matter is
coming for orders.
12) P.W.1 before the tribunal was the injured who put forth the
facts in tune with the pleadings. Through his examination Ex.A.1 to
Ex.A.4 were marked.
13) R.W.1 was no other than the first respondent, who adverted
to the facts in accordance with the counter.
14) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he denied during cross
examination that there was no accident as alleged. It is to be noted that
Ex.A.1 was the certified copy of FIR pertaining to the accident and police
after investigation filed charge sheet under Ex.A.4. Though there was
delay in lodging report by P.W.1, but Ex.A.1 reveals that as he was
taking treatment in APSRTC hospital, Visakhapatnam and later he was
taken to Rajhmundry from there to Hyderabad, he could not lodge the
report immediately. Apart from this, there was evidence of P.W.1 coupled
with admission made by R.W.1 to show that he was convicted in the
criminal case. There was convincing evidence adduced by the claimant
to show that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of
the first respondent.
15) The factum of receipt of injuries by first respondent
pertaining to the accident is quietly evident from Ex.A.2. According to
Ex.A.2, the injury received by the claimant was grievous in nature.
Though claimant did not examine any doctor to prove the nature of
treatment, but according to his evidence, he was going around the
hospitals. Firstly, he was admitted in APSRTC dispensary at
Visakhapatnam and later he was taken to Aditya Hospital, Rajahmundry
from there he was taken to RTC hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and
ultimately to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad. According to Ex.A.1 report, the
claimant sustained injuries to his disc and there was compression of
nervous in the neck.
16) As seen from Ex.A.2, the medical officer could not mention
the plight of the claimant fully on the ground that the claimant was to be
taken to a specialist hospital. Ultimately, the finding of facts recorded by
the tribunal is that the claimant received grievous injury.
17) Now turning to the heads of compensation, the tribunal took
note of the fact that from the date of accident i.e., 18.01.2014 till
24.02.2014 the claimant lost his earnings. It is to be noted that though
the claimant was working as RTC employee, but his absence period was
to be regularized by applying appropriate leave. The leave that might
have been incurred by the claimant is to be compensated in terms of
money, as such, the tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the
loss of earnings considering his monthly salary as Rs.33,413/-. The other
heads of compensation is that the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medicines and extra nourishment, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation
charges and Rs.70,000/- towards permanent disability.
18) It is to be noted that the claimant did not file any discharge
summary. No piece of paper is filed to explain the nature of surgeries,
but there is some clue from Ex.A.1, copy of report as well as from Ex.A.2
wound certificate the nature of the injuries which needs absolutely
surgical intervention. Considering the period of treatment and the surgical
intervention which the claimant had to undergo, this Court is of the
considered view that it is reasonable to consider a sum of Rs.75,000/-
towards pain and suffering. In the considered view of this Court, the
tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head which is higher
side and hence it cannot be considered.
19) Turning to the medicines, no piece of paper is filed by the
claimant. Contention of the insurance company is that the claimant took
treatment under APSRTC in the department hospitals. Without there
being any basis whatsoever, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
under the guise of medicines and extra nourishment. It is altogether
different that the claimant can claim certain amount towards extra
nourishment for which there is no need to file any proof because the
extra nourishment meant a person has to take special diet so as to get
speeding up of the recovery. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted
by the tribunal without there being any basis is disallowed and it is safe to
award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment considering the
plight of the claimant. Further the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards transport expenses which is reasonable because the claimant
was moving around the hospitals at Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry and
Hyderabad for several times.
20) Turning to so-called permanent disability, absolutely, the
claimant did not prove any disability. However, the fact remained is that
according to Ex.A.2, the claimant received fracture to the neck,
compression of nervous and injury to the disc. It is to be noted that
admittedly, the claimant will have some discomfort throughout his life.
The said discomfort is not coming in the way of earnings. Hence, it is
reasonable to award a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards
permanent discomfort.
21) In the light of the above, the reasonable compensation which
the claimant is entitled can be summarised as follows:
(a) Loss of earnings : Rs. 50,000-00
(b) Pain and suffering : Rs. 75,000-00
(c) Extra nourishment : Rs. 20,000-00
(d) Transportation charges : Rs. 20,000-00
(e) Permanent discomfort : Rs. 50,000-00
22) Therefore, the claimant is entitled total compensation of
Rs.2,15,000/-.
23) In the result, MACMA is allowed in part with proportionate
costs reducing the compensation from that of Rs.3,40,000/- to
Rs.2,15,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit and rest of the compensation shall be deposited by
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of one month from this day.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.01.05.2024.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 01.05.2024
PGR
