Apsrtc vs Nanam Cherla Kishore
2022 Latest Caselaw 6106 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 1875 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by

the Principal District, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,

in O.P.No. 1402 of 2010 dated 04.10.2013, Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present

appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on

19.02.2010 at about 4-00 p.m. the petitioner along with his

sister was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing

no. TR 3773 from Gokaram village to Gangem and when he

reached near Varkatpally Village, Mutyalamma Temple, RTC

bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1027 came from the opposite

direction in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side

and dashed his motorcycle, due to which, both of them fell

down and the petitioner sustained multiple fractures and

grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government

MGP,J Macma_1875_2014

Hospital, Bhongir and from there shifted to private hospitals

and finally shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad, where he was

admitted as inpatient and his right leg was amputated below

the knee. Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads.

4. Respondent-Corporation filed counter disputing the

manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner and the treatment taken by him. It is further

contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is

highly excessive and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the injuries to the petitioner and if so, was it due to the fault of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1027 or the petitioner and if both are responsible, what is the responsibility of each?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and what is the liability of respondent?

3. To what relief?

MGP,J Macma_1875_2014

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 3 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A14 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On

behalf of respondent-Corporation no witnesses were examined

and no document was marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along

with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of deposit against the

respondent-Corporation.

8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Corporation and the learned Counsel for the respondent-

claimant. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Corporation contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in not

taking the contributory negligence on the part of the

respondent in riding his motorcycle and the Tribunal erred in

granting the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under various

heads Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned

order in the O.P.

MGP,J Macma_1875_2014

10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-

claimant submitted that the Tribunal after considering the

oral and documentary evidence available on record, has

awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, though the

learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is

contributory negligence between two vehicles, the Tribunal

after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the offending vehicle.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to PW.2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon at

NIMS, the petitioner was admitted in NIMS on 20-01-2010

with alleged history of road traffic accident took place on

19.01.2010 and the petitioner/PW-1 sustained closed fracture

shaft of right femur and Grade.III(C) compound fracture of

both bones of right leg (vascular injuries present), which are

MGP,J Macma_1875_2014

grievous in nature and the patient was operated on 21-1-2010

and 25-1-2010 for the fracture and an attempt was made to

salvage the leg, but however, the limb salvage could not be

done because of the vascular injury and hence, the leg was

amputated below the knee. For the second injury, PW-1 was

operated upon on 11-3-2010 and was discharged on

17.3.2010. PW-2 further deposed that on 03-12-2010 he

examined PW-1 and issued Ex.A12 disability certificate

certifying that he sustained 50% permanent and partial

disability to his right lower limb. Further PW-3 who is Billing

in-charge at NIMS, deposed that Ex.A7 final bill issued by

NIMS for Rs.97,075/- was issued by NIMS. Before joining in

NIMS, PW-1 took treatment in different hospitals and filed the

medical bills under Exs.A8 to A10. Therefore, considering the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.25,000/- towards

pain and sufferance, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical

expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges.

Further with regard to the disability sustained by the

petitioner due to amputation of his right leg below the knee,

MGP,J Macma_1875_2014

the Tribunal by taking his income at Rs.5,000/- per month,

awarded an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of

earnings. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- under various heads, which is just and

reasonable. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this

Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to

interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal and

the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 23.11.2022 pgp