Telangana High Court
The A P S R T C vs Y Sunitha on 20 April, 2023
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1862 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation (previously Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation), questioning the award and decree,
dated 19.02.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1239 of 2015 on the file
of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief
Judge, 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 claimant filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her
in a road accident that occurred on 30.05.2015. It is stated that
on the fateful day, while the claimant was travelling in auto
bearing No. AP 28 TE 4968 from choudarpally to Kothapet
market, Hyderabad and at about 05:00 p.m., one RTC bus
bearing No. AP 29 Z 0962, being driven by its driver, came in
rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto
from backside, in which the claimant was travelling. As a result,
the claimant sustained fracture injuries all over the body.
Immediately, she was admitted as inpatient in Delta Hospital,
MGP, J
Macma_1862_2018
Hastinapuram. She spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical
expenses. Hence, she laid the claim against the respondents,
seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC contested the claim by filing
counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the
claimant is excessive and disputing the manner of the accident,
age and avocation.
5. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the RTC,
and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary,
the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded
compensation of Rs.48,100/- with interest at 7.5% per annum
to be payable by the respondents. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed by the RTC.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the RTC is that there is contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the auto, in which the claimant is travelling at the
time of the accident, who contributed to the said accident.
However, the Tribunal has not considered the same and
therefore, contributory negligence ought to have been fixed on
the injured while awarding compensation. Further, he
contended that the quantum of compensation claimed is
MGP, J
Macma_1862_2018
excessive, baseless and prayed to allow the appeal by reducing
the quantum of compensation reasonably.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant
contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and
reasonable compensation considering the nature of injuries
suffered by the claimant and avocation and therefore, the said
order of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court.
9. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the driver of the auto, in which the claimant is travelling at
the time of accident, who was driving the auto in a rash and
negligent manner without observing the moving traffic and
buses on the road. However, as seen from the record, in support
of its contention, the officials of RTC did not take any steps
such as summoning the driver of the bus or examining any of
the passengers in the bus, who are the best persons to speak in
this regard. The claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and in her
cross-examination, she stated that the accident occurred only
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus.
Further, Police after thorough investigation laid charge sheet
against the driver of RTC bus. Therefore, in the absence of any
rebuttal evidence, the contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for the RTC that there is contributory negligence on the
MGP, J
Macma_1862_2018
part of the driver of the auto, in which the claimant is travelling,
is not sustainable and the same is hereby rejected.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Ex.A.3, discharge summary issued by Delta Hospital, discloses
that the claimant sustained head injury and admitted as
inpatient on 30.05.2016 and also discharged on the very same
day. Considering the said facts, the tribunal has rightly awarded
Rs.30,000/- towards injuries; Rs.3,150/- towards medical bills
by relying upon Ex.A4, bunch of medical bills; Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and sufferings; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
amenities of life and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and
extra nourishment. Thus, the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same
needs no interference by this Court.
11. 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 applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
20.04.2023
gms
MGP, J
Macma_1862_2018
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1862 of 2018
DATE: 20.04.2023
gms
