Telangana High Court
G. Ram Reddy vs A.P. State Road Transport ... on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2351 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dt.17.09.2007
passed in M.V.O.P.No.41 of 2005 by the XVIII Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Court below").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2004 at about
5 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on Suzuki Motorcycle
bearing No. AP-28-S-1738 from Gowraram Village to Gajwel, and
when he reached Muthrajpalli Crossroads, the driver of RTC Bus
bearing No.AP-11-Z-486 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at
high speed and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner in opposite
direction, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained
fracture and bleeding injuries all over his body. Immediately, he
was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there, he
was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar and was treated for his
injuries for one day and was then shifted to NIMS Hospital,
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
Punjagutta, he took treatment as in-patient from 22.09.2004 to
11.11.2004 and during that period, he underwent surgery on
18.10.2004 and 01.11.2004, DHS fixation left hip + 4mm
Cancellous screw fixation is done and below knee pop slab applied.
At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 33 years and
was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m as an agriculturist. Due to the injuries,
he is unable to do any work and sustained permanent disablement.
Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking
compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.
4. The respondents filed a written statement denying the
petition allegations and mainly contended that the accident was as
a result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Due to triple
riding of the motorcycle, the rider of the motorcycle could not
control the brake and the movement of the hands and thereby
causing the accident.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident
that took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z1-486 by the
respondent No.1 vehicle?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom?
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
iii) To what relief?
6. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of the respondents, the
driver of the Bus was examined as RW-1 but no document was
marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Court below concluded that the petitioner
contributed negligence in causing the accident and as such, the
Court below fixed the ratio of negligence upon the driver of the Bus
and the petitioner at 75:25 respectively and out of the amount
which the petitioner was originally entitled to i.e Rs.1,50,000/-, the
Court below awarded the petitioner Rs.1,12,500/- owing to his part
of negligence at 25% (Rs.1,50,000/- - Rs.37,500/-) with
proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the
Court below erred in concluding that both vehicles are at fault but
the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the RTC Bus alone.
He also contended that the amounts awarded under various heads
are also very meagre and 25% disability as per Ex.A14 was not
considered along with the application of the multiplier method.
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents would contend that the Tribunal was justified in fixing
the compensation and the liability and prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
11. The ground raised by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the liability being attributed to the
petitioner owing to his contribution to the negligence which was
assessed at 25% by the Court below is that the charge sheet was
laid against the driver of the Bus and it is deemed that the driver of
the bus himself was solely responsible for the accident. The Court
below discussed the decision of this Court in United India
Insurance Company Limited vs. K. Anjaih1, where in a case of an
accident involving a lorry and a scooter which was being driven by
its rider along with two pillion riders, this Court attributed
contributory negligence on part of the driver of the scooter and
assessed his part of liability at 25%.
12. As seen from the evidence on record, there is ample
evidence to show that there were two pillion riders on the
motorcycle being driven by the petitioner and the ground raised by
the petitioner with regard to the charge sheet against the driver of
the bus, cannot be taken into consideration in view of the decision
2004 (4) ALD 444.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
stated supra. When the very legislation under which the petitioner
is claiming compensation is contravened by the petitioner along
with the two pillion riders, the petitioner cannot expect the Courts
to interfere with a legally sustainable order either sympathetically
or otherwise, in order to evade from liability which accrued upon
him due to the contributed negligence. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to set-off the liability cast upon the petitioner as assessed
by the Court below.
13. The Court below awarded Rs.6,000/- for extra-
nourishment and Rs.20,000/- towards pain suffering. As the
petitioner took treatment as in-patient from 22.09.2004 to
11.11.2004 and during that period, he underwent surgery on
18.10.2004 and 01.11.2004, DHS fixation left hip + 4mm
Cancellous screw fixation done and below knee pop slab applied,
this Court awards Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Court below also
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, the same is enhanced
to Rs.6,000/- in the circumstances that the petitioner had to travel
to different hospitals and on multiple occasions. The Court below
failed to award compensation under loss of amenities and the
petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/- as such. The Court below
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
awarded Rs. 44,000/- altogether towards medical expenses, which
is justified.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further raised a
ground vis-ā-vis the income of the petitioner, however, in the
absence of any evidence, the Court below was justified in assessing
the same at Rs.3,000/- p.m. The same was not considered by the
Court below for the purpose of calculating future loss of earnings
using the multiplier method as the Court below found that the
petitioner was not permanently disabled. The evidence and findings
would reveal that the injuries of the petitioner healed by the time of
examination by the doctor and as such, the Court below awarded a
lump sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of earnings and disability.
There is no irregularity in such a conclusion, however, keeping in
view the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is
enhancing the same Rs.1,00,000/-.
15. As such, this Court is of the considered view in granting
compensation to the petitioner as against the compensation
amount granted by the Tribunal as follows:
Head Amount awarded Amount
by Tribunal awarded/enhannced
by this Court
Extra nourishment Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Nil Rs. 10,000/-
7 RRN,J
MACMA No.2351 of 2014
Loss of earrings Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
and disability
Medical expenses Rs.44,000/- Rs. 44,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
Transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs. 6,000/-
Total Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
But awarded But awarded
Rs.1,12,500/- Rs.1,50,000/-
(Deducting 25% (Deducting 25%
owing to the owing to the
petitioner's petitioner's
negligence. negligence.
16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part,
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.1,12,500/- to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty
Thousand only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving
due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
21st day of February, 2023
BDR
