Apsrtc Another vs Mohammed Younus
2022 Latest Caselaw 3215 Tel

            THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 4089 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation (presently, Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation), aggrieved of the order and decree dated

28.05.2013 in M.V.O.P. No. 109 of 2012 on the file of the Motor

Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief

Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. For the injuries suffered by the claimant-respondent

herein in the accident occurred on 09.01.2012, involving the

RTC Bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5425, owned by appellants-RTC,

the claimant, aged about 11 years, filed the O.P. claiming the

compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs.

3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary

evidence brought on record, allowed the O.P. in part awarding a

total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization,

to be paid by the appellants-RTC within one month from the

date of said order. Complaining that the compensation awarded

by the tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, the RTC has filed

this appeal.

GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-

RTC and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the

material available on record.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-RTC

contends inter alia that the tribunal did not consider the

evidence brought on record in proper perspective and

erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In fact, due to

the negligence on the part of the claimant while riding the

bicycle, the accident took place. Therefore, the tribunal ought

to have apportioned the contributory negligence on the part of

the claimant while determining the compensation of amount.

As regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended that

considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the

grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is on higher

side and needs to be reduced.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimant-respondent, has contended that the

compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal,

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the clamant, is

reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014

7. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants-RTC that only due to the rash and negligent riding of

the bicycle by the claimant, the accident took place and there

was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. As seen

from the record, although the appellants-RTC contended that

there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and

it is only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant in

riding bicycle, they did not adduce any evidence in this regard

before the tribunal. In fact, P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident,

categorically deposed that only due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bus by its driver, the accident took place. The

appellants-RTC did not choose to examine the driver of the bus

to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of

the bus. In such circumstances, considering the evidence of

P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.2, copies of FIR and charge sheet, the

tribunal has rightly held that the accident has occurred only

due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence,

this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings. So far as

the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is on record that

the claimant had suffered three grievous injuries such as (i)

crush injury of right hand with loss of skin on right palm; (ii)

distal 3rd of right forearm and write exposing tendance and

vessels; and (iii) right ulnar arterm is cut. Even according to the

evidence of treating doctor, P.W.3, the claimant was treated as

GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014

inpatient in Osmania General Hospital from 17.07.2011 to

20.08.2011 and that the claimant also underwent surgery on

29.07.2011. He specifically deposed that the injuries sustained

by the claimant are grievous in nature. In such circumstances,

the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the tribunal cannot be

said to be excessive. The appellants-RTC have not made out

any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore,

this Court is not inclined disturb the just compensation amount

awarded by the tribunal.

8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

order and decree passed by the tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 109 of

2012, dated 28.05.2013. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 01.07.2022 tsr

GSD, J MACMA.No.4089 of 2014

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 4089 of 2014

DATE: 01-07-2022