Apsrtc vs Thadagonda Rakesh Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 425 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.392 of 2017

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation (Now TSRTC) aggrieved of the order and decree dated

29.02.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.658 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,

Karimnagar.

2. According to the petitioner, on 30-05-2013, minor petitioner

along with Juttu Rajesham and Thadagonda Babu went to Chinthakunta

village for attending a marriage and after attending the same, while

they were returning to their house on Yamaha motorcycle, on the way

at about 6-00 p.m., when they reached the cross-roads of Ramadugu,

one RTC bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0023 of Jagtial depot came from the

opposite direction at high speed and dashed their motorcycle, as a

result, minor petitioner and two others fell down and received injuries.

Due to which, minor petitioner received injuries to his head, left frontal

SDH with SAH cerebral edema, one upper teeth was broken and also

received laceration to the upper lip. Immediately after the accident,

minor petitioner lost consciousness and was shifted to Sai Ram Multi

MGP, J MACMA.No.392 of 2017

Speciality Hospital, Karimnagar and on his admission, he underwent

different types of medical tests conservatively as an inpatient from

30.5.2013 to 2.6.2013 and was discharged with an advise to take bed

rest for six months. He spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- for his

treatment. Due to head injury, he is suffering with mental disorder and

giddiness, which will affect his future studies also. Thus, the petitioner

claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the bus.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident,

age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that

the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and therefore,

prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0023 driven by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

MGP, J MACMA.No.392 of 2017

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove their case, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to

A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined

and no document was marked.

7. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.1,14,033/- along with proportionate costs and

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-Corporation has filed this appeal.

8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for

the claimant-respondent No.1 herein. Perused the material available on

record.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation

contended that there is no negligence on the part of the APSRTC bus

bearing No. AP 07 Z 0023 and the tribunal failed to consider that the

rider of the motorcycle in order to overtake the tractor, driven the

MGP, J MACMA.No.392 of 2017

vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the

bus from the opposite direction. It is further contended that the

Tribunal grossly erred in awarding the compensation against the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Accordingly, prayed to set

aside the impugned order in the O.P.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant contended

that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable

compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, the learned Standing

Counsel for respondents-Corporation contended that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the

motorcycle and not due to the RTC bus. However, except examining

their driver as RW-1, there is no other independent witness was

examined in support of their contention. Further the police after

thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the RTC

bus. Hence, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with

documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

MGP, J MACMA.No.392 of 2017

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per Ex.A2 injury

certificate, the petitioner received head injury, which is grievous in

nature. PW-1 deposed that due to the above injury, he was admitted in

Sai Ram Hospital, Karimnagar and he spent an amount of Rs.25,000/-.

But Ex.A6 discharge bill issued by Sai Ram Hospital, Karimnagar

shows that he spent an amount of Rs.14,033/- towards medical

expenses. Further he was in the hospital from 30.5.2013 to 3.6.2013

due to head injury. Further as the minor petitioner has sustained head

injury, he might not have attended to his school, which affected to his

studies. Therefore, considering the nature of injury sustained by the

minor petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the tribunal rightly

awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.14,033/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards extra

nourishment and transport charges and Rs.50,000/- for the loss of

academic year. Thus, in all the petitioner awarded an amount of

Rs.1,14,033/- under various heads, which is just and reasonable. Thus,

there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal

on this aspect.

MGP, J MACMA.No.392 of 2017

13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC

bus and as such, the tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and

2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Therefore, in

view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are

no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the

Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

30.01.2023 pgp