The Apsrtc, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs B. Nagaraju,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5294 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

            M.A.C.M.A. No.4062 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Road Transport

Corporation, questioning the order and decree, dated

27.11.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2400 of 2010 on the

file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court),

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have

been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed

a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 03.09.2010. It is stated that on

03.09.2010 while the petitioner was going on foot from

Putlibowli towards CBS side and when he reached

MGP, J Macma_4062_2014

near CBS, R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0179 being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed, dashed the petitioner, due to which the

petitioner sustained crush injury to his right leg and

foot, injury on head and other injuries all over the

body. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.737

of 2010 was registered by the Police, Afzalgunj,

Hyderabad against the driver of the said RTC bus. The

petitioner filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1

and 2, being the owners of the RTC bus.

4. Considering the claim and the counters filed by

the respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence,

both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has

allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Challenging the same, the present appeal has been

filed by the R.T.C.

MGP, J Macma_4062_2014

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show

that the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle by its driver, and after considering

the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary

evidence i.e., Ex.A1, First Information Report and

Ex.A2, charge sheet, the tribunal has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C.

bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0179 and has answered the

issue in favour of the petitioner and against the

respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0179.

MGP, J Macma_4062_2014

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that the

petitioner has sustained crush injury to his legs and

his right leg was amputated below the knee. As per

Ex.A5, disability certificate, issued by the Medical

Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, the petitioner

has sustained 60% permanent disability. P.W.2, who

is the Assistant Professor in Orthopedic, Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad, in his evidence, categorically

deposed that he is one of the member of the Medical

Board and Ex.A5, disability certificate, was issued by

their hospital authorities and according to Ex.A5, the

petitioner has sustained 60% permanent disability as

the right leg of the petitioner was amputated below the

knee level. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that the

petitioner was working as Technician-C in D.L.R.L.

Khairatabad with I.D.No.T-856 and Ex.A7 is the salary

certificate of the petitioner. P.W.3 further deposed that

MGP, J Macma_4062_2014

as per the office record, the salary of the petitioner was

Rs.25,540/- as on 13.04.2011. Therefore, taking into

consideration all the aspects i.e., 60% disability

sustained by the petitioner, nature of treatment

undergone by him, medical expenses, extra

nourishment and pain and suffering, the Tribunal has

rightly awarded an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum. Therefore, I see no reason

to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and

the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed

confirming the award and decree passed by the

Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 26.10.2022 tsr

MGP, J Macma_4062_2014