M/S. A.P. State Road Transport ... vs Cherukupalli Mangaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 6113 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 1089 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by

the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court.I), Khammam, in

M.V.O.P.No. 349 of 2009 dated 06.01.2011, 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 21-08-

2008 the petitioner was going to Pallipadu Village on his

motorcycle bearing No. AP 20 J 5095 and when he reached

near Police Quarters, Konijerla, RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z

4749 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the petitioner from his backside, due to

which, he fell on the road and sustained fracture injury on

left elbow and on left eyebrow and other parts of the body.

Immediately he was shifted to New Life Hospital, Khammam

MGP,J Macma_1089_2014

and from there he was shifted to Mamatha General Hospital,

Khamma, where he underwent operation on his left humerus

bone and rods were inserted and he spent more than

Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses. According to the

petitioner, he was an Attender in Andhra Bank, Srinagar

colony, Khammam and used to earn Rs.13,200/- per month.

Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

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 accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No. AP 20 J 5095 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

MGP,J Macma_1089_2014

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A9 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.67,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along with

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till realization 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

holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent

driving of the bus and fastening liability on the appellant-

Corporation and the Tribunal erred in granting the

compensation of Rs.67,000/- under various heads

MGP,J Macma_1089_2014

Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order in

the O.P.

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, 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 the petitioner, he received fracture

injury on left elbow, injury on cubital region and left eyebrow.

Further PW-2 who treated the petitioner/PW-1 at Mamatha

General Hospital, Khammam deposed that the petitioner

sustained compound supra condylar fracture of left

MGP,J Macma_1089_2014

humorous, extensive type with median and radian nerve

injury and lacerated wound over the left cubital fossa region

and that he conducted operation to PW-1 and internal fixation

with K-wires on 22.8.2008 and was discharged on 18-9-2008

and that PW-1 spent Rs.35,000/- for medical and other

expenses. However, the petitioner filed Ex.A7 medical bills for

Rs.17,093/-. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1

and 2 coupled with documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.22,000/- for

the injuries sustained by the petitioner, Rs.17,093/- towards

medical expenses and Rs.972/- towards attendant charges.

Further considering the avocation of the petitioner as

Attendar in Andhra Bank and getting Rs.13,200/- per month

and the leave granted to him, an amount of Rs.26,935/- is

granted towards loss of earnings. In total, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.67,000/- 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.

MGP,J Macma_1089_2014

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