Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs D.Sivalakshmi on 13 April, 2023
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4083 of 2014 and 57 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.4083 of 2014 filed by the
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (previously,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation) and
M.A.C.M.A.No.57 of 2015 filed by the injured-claimant, assailing
the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very
same order and decree, dated 12.06.2014 made in
M.V.O.P.No.2405 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the respondents claiming compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor
vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2012. It is stated that
on the fateful day, at about 06:45 hours, when the claimant was
MGP, J
2 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
waiting at Kurnool-2 Deport to go to Nandyal to write Group-IV
examination, one Nandyal Depot RTC bus bearing No. AP 21 Z
380 came and stopped. While the passengers were boarding the
bus, the driver moved the bus at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the claimant, due to which, the
claimant fell down on the road. The bus ran over on the right
leg of the claimant resulting into crush injury to the right leg
apart from other multiple injuries. Immediately, the claimant
was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and later
she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar and thereafter
she took treatment in R.R.Hospital, Kurnool. Due to the said
accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and her right
leg was amputated above the knee. She incurred hospital and
medical expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/-. According to the
claimant, she was aged about 21 years and earning Rs.14,000/-
per month as teacher and tutor in Cattamanchi Ramalinga
Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool and used to contribute her
entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the accident,
she sustained permanent disability and lost her future earnings.
Therefore, she laid the claim petition against the respondents,
seeking compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs.
MGP, J
3 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC contested the claim by filing
counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the
claimants is excessive and disputing the manner of the
accident.
5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the RTC, and on
evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding
compensation of Rs.16,54,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the RTC (appellant in
MACMA No.4083 of 2014) has vehemently argued that the
Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in
proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory
negligence on the part of the claimant, who was trying to catch
the moving bus without observing the moving vehicles on the
road. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned
contributory negligence even on the part of the claimant. As
regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended that
though the claimant has asserted that she was aged 21 years
and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as teacher and tutor in
MGP, J
4 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool, in
the absence of any valid proof in that regard, the Tribunal
should have restricted the income of the claimant to Rs.5,000/-
per month instead of Rs.7,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel
specifically contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the
disability at 80% basing on Ex.A6 issued by the Medical Board,
Kurnool, in the absence of examining any person connected
therewith.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant
(appellant in MACMA No.57 of 2015) has contended that by the
time of accident, the claimant was working as teacher and tutor
in Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool
and drawing monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. In support of her
claim, the claimant got marked Exs.A.9, salary certificate and
examined PW.4, Accounts-in-charge of Cattamanchi Ramalinga
Redy Group of Schools at Kurnool, who deposed that the
claimant was working as social teacher and drawing salary of
Rs.14,000/- per month and in order to support his deposition,
he filed Ex.X1, authorization of PW.4; Ex.X2, Attested copy of
Attendance Register; Ex.X3, Photostats of salary receipts.
However, without any valid reasons, the Tribunal has brushed
aside the said evidence and has erroneously fixed the meagre
MGP, J
5 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal should
have awarded some amount towards loss of amenities as the
claimant's right leg above knee was amputated which will have
great impact on her social and personal life in the future
considering her age as 22 years.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material
available on record.
9. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel
for the RTC (appellant in MACMA No.4083 of 2014) that the
accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even on
the part of the claimant as the claimant was trying to catch the
moving bus without observing the moving vehicles on the road
and therefore, the Tribunal should have apportioned
contributory negligence. As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR,
was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
Further, after due investigation into the crime, police laid the
charge sheet, Ex.A.3, against the driver of the offending vehicle
stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle and the driver was charged for
the offence under Sections 304-A IPC. That apart, P.W.2, the
eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident
MGP, J
6 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus
by its driver. Though it is the case of the RTC that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, for the
reasons best known to it, the RTC did not take any steps to
summon the driver or any passengers of the offending bus to
prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant, who are the best persons to speak in this regard.
Further, no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-
examination of P.W. 2, eyewitness to the accident to discredit
her testimony. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and
Exs.A.1 & A.3, FIR and charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly
held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which needs no
interference by this Court.
10. Now, the short question that arises for consideration is
"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
equitable"?
11. To prove the treatment and the medical expenses meted
out by her, the claimant examined the orthopedic surgeon and
consultant in Kamineni Hospital, who treated her, as PW.3 and
PW.5, Billing clerk apart from marking Ex.A.4, discharge
summary and Ex.A.5, bunch of medical bills for a sum of
MGP, J
7 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
Rs.3,48,286/-. In support of the injuries as well as the
disability sustained by her, the claimant got marked Ex.A2,
medico legal case record; Ex. A6, disability certificate issued by
Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kurnool;
Ex.A10, Hospital O.P. Tickets; and Ex. A11, X-ray film. As per
the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the documentary evidence
i.e., Ex.A4-discharge summary, the claimant has sustained
lacerated wound over popliteal fosse 4 x 4 cms., in left leg, right
leg lower 1/3rd muscles of all compartments were severely
crushed with contamination, degloving of skin from lower thigh
to ankle, dentle pulses absent, all blood vessels and nerves were
severely crushed and he further deposed in his evidence that
the claimant was suffering with permanent disability at 80% as
her right leg was amputated above the knee. Further, the
claimant got marked Ex.A6-disability certificate issued by the
competent authority i.e., Superintendent, Government General
Hospital, Kurnool to the effect that due to the amputation of
right leg above the knee, she suffered 80% permanent disability.
12. Insofar as the amount awarded towards compensation
under the head of loss of future income, as per the Guidelines
for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for
certification, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
MGP, J
8 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
Social Justice & Empowerment, the percentage of disability of
lower limb for amputation below the knee lower 1/3rd of leg is
60%. In the instant case, the right leg of the claimant was
amputated above the knee. Furthermore, the percentage of
disability at 80% mentioned in Ex.A6, disability certificate was
issued by Superintendent, Government General Hospital,
Kurnool, under the authority vide G.O.Ms.No.109, Women's
Development, Child Welfare & Labour Department dated
15.06.1992 and in deposition of PW.3, the doctor who treated
the claimant, is corroborated with Ex.A.6 in relation to the
disability suffered by the claimant. Hence, considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
rightly fixed the disability suffered by the claimant at 80% and
the same needs no interference.
13. As regards the income, according to the claimant, she was
21 years old at the time of accident and earning Rs.14,000/- per
month as Social Teacher and tutor in Cattamanchi Ramalinga
Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool. In order to prove her income,
the claimant examined PW.4, Accountant in-charge and marked
Exs.A7, A8, A9, X1, X2, X3. Ex.A.9, salary receipts (3 in
number) clearly disclose that at the time of accident, the
claimant was being paid Rs.14,000/- per month. The evidence
MGP, J
9 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
of P.W.4 is to the effect that the claimant was being paid
Rs.14,000/- per month and that due to the amputation of right
leg, the claimant was removed from service. However, the
Tribunal has took the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.7,000/- which is meagre considering the evidence adduced
by the claimant. Therefore, considering the avocation and the
age of the claimant, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly
income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-. Since it is the case of
amputation of right leg of the claimant at the younger age of 22
years, she is entitled to addition of 40% towards future
prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Hence, the future
monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.11,200/-
(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Since the claimant was 22 years old
at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as
per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '18', the
total loss of income of the claimant due to disability comes to
Rs.19,35,360/- (Rs.11,200 x 12 x 18 x 80/100). Considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the period of
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP, J
10 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
treatment, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- under the head of
injury, shock, pain and sufferings; Rs.2,70,000/- towards
artificial limbs and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of hospital,
medical, extra nourishment, attendance, transport and
incidental charges, which are reasonable and the same are not
disturbed considering the medical evidence more particularly,
the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5. As far as loss of amenities and
loss of expectation of life is concerned, in Kavita v. Deepak
and others3, the Apex Court has held that victims of accident,
who are disabled, either permanently or temporarily, adequate
compensation should be awarded not only for the physical
injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning and
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which one
would have enjoyed had it not been for the disability. The Apex
Court further held that the amount awarded under the head of
loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with
amount awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and
medical expenses. In the instant case, since the claimant has
already suffered various injuries and has sustained 80%
disability because of the amputation of right leg above the knee,
this Court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
(2012) 9 SCC 604
MGP, J
11 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Thus, in all, the
claimant is entitled for the compensation as under:-
Sl.No. Amount awarded Amount Amount
under the Head awarded by awarded/enhanced
Tribunal by this Court
1. Injury, shock, Rs.75,000/- Rs.75,000/-
pain and suffering
2. Hospital, medical, Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
extra
nourishment,
attendance,
transport and
incidental charges
3. Loss of income on Rs.12,09,600/- Rs.19,35,360/-
account of
disability of 80%
4. Towards artificial Rs.2,70,000/- Rs.2,70,000/-
limbs
5. Towards loss of Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
amenities to life
6. TOTAL Rs.16,54,600/- Rs.24,80,360/-
14. In the result, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.4083 of
2014, the M.A.C.M.A.No.57 of 2015 is allowed in part enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.16,54,600/-
to Rs.24,80,360/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization
payable by the respondents. Time to deposit the amount is one
MGP, J
12 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount without
depositing any security. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
13.04.2023
tsr
MGP, J
13 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4083 of 2014 and 57 of 2015
.04.2023
tsr
