Telangana Road Transport ... vs Mr.G.Satyanarayanasatyanarayan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3307 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                     MACMA No.390 of 2018


JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the award passed by the I Addl. Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in O.P.No.307 of 2013, the

State Road Transport Corporation of Telangana, preferred this

appeal challenging the award, by which a sum of Rs.8,10,000/-

was awarded to the respondent/claimant for the injuries caused to

him in a road accident.

2. Even though, number of grounds raised in the appeal, the

learned counsel for the appellant focused on contributory

negligence on the ground that the Court below did not consider

the said aspect while awarding compensation. It is the argument

of counsel for the appellant that there is evidence on record to

believe that there was contributory negligence by the respondent,

as such, he is not entitled to the entire compensation.

3. As per the material averments made in the petition, it

appears that on 08-07-2011, it is alleged that the petitioner was

traveling in a bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 4801 as a passenger. The

respondent/claimant has alleged that when they reached Culvert

at Regadimailaram Village, outskirts of Mahabubnagar District, SSRN,J

the driver of the above said bus drove the bus in high speed, in a

rash and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks, due to

which the respondent jumped two times from the seat and fell

down resulting fracture at L1 with conus compression, apart from

other multiple injuries all over the body. It is alleged in the petition

that the claimant was admitted to Raghavendra Hospital at

Kodangal and first aid was done, and later he was shifted to Udai

Orthopaedic Hospital, at Hyderabad. He was treated as in-patient

from 09-07-2011 and he spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The

claimant sought for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The petition was

contested by the appellant herein mainly on the ground that there

was contributory negligence by the claimant. There is no proof

about the medical expenditure, the respondent exaggerated the

medical expenses, thereby, sought for dismissal of the petition.

However, the Court below accepted the claimant and awarded a

sum of Rs.8,08,600/- under various heads.

4. In the grounds of appeal filed before this Court, it is alleged

that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding such a huge

amount without considering contributory negligence by the

respondent/claimant, there was no independent witness

examined to prove the alleged accident. The evidence of injured,

who was examined as PW.1, being interested witness cannot be SSRN,J

accepted. It is also case of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to

have appreciated the fact that on the negligence on the part of the

injured, who did not take precautionary measures while traveling

in the bus. The main dispute is with regard to the assessment of

disability @ 58% and awarding Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical

expenses.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the trial Court awarded excess compensation amount, if so, it can be reduced as prayed for ?

6. According to the averments made in the petition and as per

the evidence of respondent, who was examined as PW.1, the

accident occurred while he was traveling in a bus. It was

specifically alleged in the complaint lodged before the police that

the driver of the above said bus drove it in high speed, in a rash

and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks twice, the

respondent/claimant was jumped from the seat and fell down. He

suffered fracture to his Spine. In order to prove his claim, the

respondent was examined as PW.1. He has also examined

PWs.2 to 4. It may be a fact that the claimant did not examine

any other person to prove the accident, but there is no denial of

his traveling in the bus in question. In the counter itself, the

respondent pleaded that the accident might have occurred due to SSRN,J

the contributory negligence of the claimant. He failed to take

precautionary measures while traveling in the bus. The appellant

herein could not place on record any evidence about the alleged

precautionary measures, a passenger supposed to have taken

while traveling in a bus. The respondent traveled in the bus like

the other passengers but for the rash and negligent driving and

sudden application of the breaks by the driver, the petitioner

could not have jumped from the seat and fell in the bus. The

appellant could not produce any proof that there was some

contributory negligence by the claimant. Therefore, I am unable

to accept the contention of the appellant.

7. In order to prove his employment and income as a principal

of Harsha Junior College, one of its employee was examined as

PW.3. According to PW.3, it is very clear that claimant worked as

principal of said college on the monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. It

seems the claimant stopped working in the college after the

accident, the salary certificate is marked as Ex.A13. Ex.A15 is

the attested copy of the attendance register. Ex.A16 is the

attested copy of salary vouchers marked through PW.3.

Therefore, it is very clear that prior to the accident, the claimant

was working as Principal on a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. The

respondent has examined the medical officer through whom it is SSRN,J

established that due to the injury to the spine, he underwent

surgery and the physical disability was assessed @ 58%. Even

though, there is evidence before the Court to believe that the

respondent was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and he stopped

working in view of the accident, the Court below did not took the

entire amount of salary while assessing the loss of income in

having the amount taken Rs.5,000/- per month and applying

multiplier '17' came to the conclusion that the loss of earning as

Rs.5,91,600/-. It may be a fact that the respondent/claimant can

work as teacher but in the light of 58% possibility, he cannot work

with the same strength as he used to work prior to the accident,

he may not be able to earn that much of income. Therefore, the

compensation of Rs.5,95,600/- is quite reasonable. The Court

below awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical

expenditure. In fact, the respondent has produced medical bills.

According to Ex.A4/discharge summary, Ex.A6 out-patient record,

Ex.A7 medical and surgical bills, it shows the respondents spent

Rs.70,165/-. Ex.A8 is another hospital bill for Rs.60,100/-, Ex.A9

is the bunch of hospital bills for Rs.1,86,200/- and Ex.A10 is

another bunch of medical bills for Rs.13,806/-. However, the

Court below did not accept these bills on the ground that they

shows excess amount as medical expenses and awarded SSRN,J

Rs.1,50,000/-. It is on record that the respondent/claimant

suffered major injury to that spine, he underwent surgery resulting

some nailing to the spinal cord. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- is quite reasonable. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was

awarded for removal of implants. The other amounts awarded by

the Court below are towards pain and suffering, transport

charges, food and nourishment and attendant charges to the tune

of Rs.42,000/-. It is on record that the respondent/claimant

suffered severe injury to the spine, he was hospitalized,

undergone surgery and injury resulting 58% disability. Therefore,

the amounts awarded by the Court below are not excess amounts

as contended by the appellant herein. Therefore, the appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

4th July, 2022.

PLV