Apsrtc, Hyderabad 1 Other vs D. Sarala , Hyderabad
2021 Latest Caselaw 3547 Tel

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.58 of 2016


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC/respondents against the

decree and award dt.30.06.2012 passed in MVOP.No.2222 of 2012 on

the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIV

Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Hyderabad.

2. The claim petition is filed by one B. Sarla / petitioner under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident

occurred on 02.09.2012.

3. The claimant's case in brief is that, on 02.09.2012 while herself

and her husband were proceeding on a motor-cycle bearing registration

No.AP-09-8135 (the motor cycle) to Erragadda and when they reached

Alkapuri 'X' Roads, one APSRTC bus bearing registration

No.AP-11-Z-7543 (the bus) driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed and struck their motor-cycle, as a result, she

slumped and sustained injuries to left foot and other injuries all over the

body. Immediately, she was shifted to Indus Hospital and undergone

treatment till 13.09.2012 by incurring medical expenditure, however

continued to suffer physical disability. Hence, filed the claim petition

for compensation.

                                                                           NTR,J
                                      ::2::                       macma_58_2016

4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, granted

compensation amount of Rs.5,59,900/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. by

holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable.

5. Aggrieved by the fastened liability and the quantum of award, the

APSRTC / respondents preferred the present Appeal on the following

grounds :

(i) that the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the

bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner;

(ii) that the Tribunal ought to have considered the

negligence on the part of the injured / pillion rider /

petitioner in the accident and the insurer of the motor-

cycle ought to have been made as party;

(iii) that the Tribunal should not have believed the version of

PW.1 without any corroborating and independent

evidence.

(iv) while assessing compensation, the Tribunal erred in

taking disability @ 42%, and monthly income at

Rs.3,500/- p.m. and erred in considering the future

prospects; and

(v) the Tribunal should not have granted amounts towards

medical treatment as the bills are not properly found, and

the compensation awarded is highly excessive.

                                                                           NTR,J
                                    ::3::                         macma_58_2016

6. The respondent / petitioner submitted that though there is material

for her entitlement for more compensation, no appeal is preferred by her

and the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court is reasonable.

Even otherwise, the appellant / respondent failed to place any evidence

to show any negligence on her part and the Tribunal, as such, properly

arrived at conclusions basing on the material. Hence, there are no

grounds for interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the light of rival pleadings, the point arises for determination is,

(a) whether the accident resulted in the injuries to respondent / petitioner is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus ? and

(b) whether the awarded compensation is excessive?.

Point (a) :

8. The petitioner, as P.W.1, testified the manner of accident as

pleaded in the petition, though in the cross-examination no fact is

elicited by the appellant / respondent to consider any negligence at least

to infer any negligence on the part of respondent / claimant. Further, the

version given by the petitioner is supported by the statement in FIR /

Ex.A.1 and the Charge-Sheet / Ex.A.2 is disclosing that the investigation

of the police is concluded against the driver of the APSRTC. Therefore,

in the absence of any material supporting the contention of the appellant

/ respondent, it shall be held that the respondent / petitioner established

the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in NTR,J ::4:: macma_58_2016

causing the accident. To add, the entry in Medico-Legal Report / Ex.A.3

discloses that the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident. On this

account, no impropriety is found in the conclusions arrived at by the

Tribunal on this point. As the rash and negligent driving of the bus is

concluded, the insurer of motor-cycle need not be a necessary party, as

such, non-inclusion of insurer of the motor-cycle is nowhere effective,

and the claim petition in no way helps the case of appellant / respondent.

9. It is well settled that the quality of evidence is crucial than the

quantity. When the material placed is clinchingly establishing the

accident, examining any independent witness for corroboration is not

essential. Therefore, the contentions raised by the appellant on this

aspect fails on merit and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus

deserves to be confirmed.

Point (b) :

10. The respondent / petitioner claimed age as 37 years as on the date

of accident. The Tribunal by considering the entries in Medico-Legal

Report - Ex.A.3 accepted the age of appellant / petitioner as 37 years.

As there is no other material to consider otherwise, the age of appellant /

petitioner can be taken as 37 years by the date of accident.

11. With regard to the monthly income of the appellant / petitioner,

the Tribunal quantified the services of appellant / petitioner as home-

NTR,J ::5:: macma_58_2016

maker at Rs.3,500/- p.m. This amount is found reasonable even when

the amount is compared to the wages of manual labour.

12. The Tribunal has taken 42% as the disability by considering the

Disability Certificate / Ex.A.8 wherein the disability of the respondent /

petitioner is rated at 42%. Considering the home-making vocation of the

appellant / petitioner as the occupation in the permanent nature of

disability, and it is common knowledge that a home-maker / house-wife

requires mobility and the activity may go round the clock. The

permanent nature of disability of the lower limb certainly affects the

capabilities, as such, no impropriety is found in considering the physical

disability affecting the capability of working as home-maker at 42%.

Further, the appellant / respondent has not forwarded any factor to

otherwise quantify disability. Hence, the conclusions of the Tribunal as

to the disability can be accepted.

13. The services of house-wife can be graded as personal self-

employment. As per the decision in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh

Kumar and ors.1, future prospects of income as enunciated in National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.2, shall be

applicable in cases of assessment of loss of future earnings due to

permanent disability. Accordingly, for the aged below 40 years, future

prospects of 40% of future monthly earnings of the injured shall be

added in computing the loss of future earnings due to disability. But, the

Civil Appeal No.2567 of 2020, dt.17.09.2020

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::6:: macma_58_2016

Tribunal has taken 50% of the income towards future prospects, as such

the percentage of future prospects shall be modified to 40% in terms of

the settled legal position. Thus, the annual income of the respondent /

petitioner including the future prospects of income would be Rs.58,800/-

(Rs.3,500/- x 12 = Rs.42,000/- + Rs.16,8800/- (40% of Rs.42,000).

14. Therefore, the loss of earnings due to disability of 42% would be

Rs.24,696/- (42% of Rs.58,800/-). This amount is rounded off to

Rs.24,700/-. As per the authority of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi

Transport Corp. and another3, the relevant multiplier to the age of 37

is '15'. If the arrived values are multiplied, the total comes to

Rs.3,70,500/- (Rs.24,700 x 15) and this amount shall be awarded

towards loss of future income due to disability.

15. Further, in the light of the material on record, granting amounts

under heads of 'medical expenses', 'extra nourishment', 'transportation',

'general damages' and 'pain and sufferings' found quite reasonable, and

no valid point is made out by the appellant / petitioner to interfere with

these points.

16. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under different heads

except modifying the percentage of future prospects at 40% in

evaluating the loss of future earnings due to disability, are confirmed.

17. In view of the above discussion and after modification of future

prospects at 40%, the amount of compensation to the injured is modified

ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::7:: macma_58_2016

from Rs.5,59,900/- to Rs.5,48,500/- with proportionate costs and interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit /

realization and the appellants / respondents are jointly and severally

liable to pay the same and they are directed to deposit the amount within

one month from the date of this order.

18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal,

shall stand closed.

_____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 18.11.2021 Ndr