Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc vs Md.Nazeer Khan on 11 October, 2022
Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1866 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 19.02.2018
in M.V.O.P.No.1240 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
(for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed
by respondent herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part,
awarding Rs.90,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-APSRTC and
the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. Perused the
record.
3. The respondent herein filed claim application seeking
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him
in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2015.
According to the claimant, on that day, the claimant was travelling
in an auto bearing No.AP 28 TE 4968 from Choudarpally towards
Kothapet Market, Hyderabad with load of mangoes along with his
wife and when they reached near Choudarpally gate, at that time,
one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0962 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle
and dashed the auto of the claimant from rear side. As a result, the
claimant and two others sustained fracture injuries. The claimant
was shifted to Delta Hospital, Hastinapuram and took treatment as
inpatient. Police, Yacharam registered a case in Cr.No.105 of 2015
against the driver of the RTC bus. According to the claimant, he
spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses.
4. The appellants-APSRTC filed counter opposing the claim
and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record,
the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver.
The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.90,400/-. Aggrieved by the same, the
insurer filed the present appeal.
6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants
is that driver of the auto was not having a valid driving licence and,
therefore, there has been violation of the terms and conditions of
the policy and, hence, the appellant-APSRTC is not liable to pay
the compensation. He would further contend that the Tribunal had
awarded the compensation without there being any proper evidence
7. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal on the basis
of the evidence of respondent herein and the documents in Exs.A-1
and A-2 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the APRTC bus by its driver resulting in the
respondent sustaining injuries. The appellants have not adduced
any evidence rebutting the said evidence. Further, the Tribunal
had considered Ex.A-3 discharge summary wherein the claimant
sustained head injury and multiple abrasions over lower and upper
limb and was hospitalized and took treatment for period of seven
days and awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- for the injuries and
Rs.48,000/- towards hospitalization expenses and Rs.2,450/-
towards medical bills i.e., an amount of Rs.50,450/- (Rs.48,000/- +
Rs.2,450/-) and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs.5,000/- towards for transportation and extra nourishment, thus
making up a total compensation of Rs.90,450/- (rounded off to
Rs.90,400/-).
8. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal had
awarded a total compensation Rs.90,400/- to the claimant after
taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence
available on record and the said compensation is just and
reasonable and the impugned award is not liable to be interfered
with.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
11.10.2022
Lrkm
