Apsrtc vs Anusuri Praneeth Praneeth Kumar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1177 Tel

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

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.484 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Road Transport

Corporation, questioning the order and decree, dated

17.05.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2014 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

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.10.00 lakhs towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 18.01.2022. According to the claimant, on

18.01.2012, while the claimant, along with one Kudire

Lachaiah, was going to Peddapalli on a motorcycle and when

they reached near S.R.R. Fire Works Godown, Appannapet

Village on Rajiv Rahadari, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 21 Z

0028 of Thorroor Depot, being driven by respondent No.1 in a

rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the

motorcycle of the claimant from opposite direction, due to which

the claimant sustained closed fracture of shaft of right femur,

MGP, J Macma_484 of 2017

compound comminuted segmental fracture of right tibia middle

and lower 1/3rd, fracture of right fibula lower end, skill loss on

anterior and the lateral aspect of the right lower leg and deep

abrasion on shine of right tibia. Immediately after the accident,

the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Peddapalli

and from there to Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar and from

there to Chelmeda Ananda Rao Hospital, Bommakal, where he

took treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery for the

fracture injuries by inserting implants. It is also stated that few

days thereafter, the claimant developed infection in the legs for

which he was admitted as inpatient in Icon Hospital,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad, where he took treatment for three

months and skin grafting was done to the loss of muscles. As

there was no re-union of bones, the claimant was developed

with infection, for which he was again admitted as inpatient in

Omega Hospital, Hyderabad and took treatment for three

months, where bone grafting was done and in total he was

under treatment for a period of one year and he spent

Rs.6,00,000/- for his treatment in various hospitals. According

to him, due to the accident, he was unable to attend his regular

works as he sustained permanent disability at 75% and

therefore, he filed the claim petition against the respondents

seeking compensation under different heads.

MGP, J Macma_484 of 2017

4. The Tribunal, considering the claim and the counter filed

by the R.T.C., and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and

documentary, has partly allowed the O.P. awarding

compensation of Rs.6,51,564/- with interest at 7.5% per annum

payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Challenging the same, the

present appeal has been filed by the R.T.C.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

6. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident

had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C.

Bus by its driver, duly considering the evidence of P.W.1,

injured, coupled with the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1,

F.I.R. and Ex.A2, charge sheet, has categorically observed that

the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and has answered the issue in

favour of the claimant 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 the R.T.C. bus.

MGP, J Macma_484 of 2017

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as

per Ex.A5, Medico Legal Record, the claimant has sustained

four grievous injuries and one simple injury i.e., closed fracture

of shaft of right femur, compound comminuted segmental

fracture of right tibia middle and lower 1/3rd, fracture of right

fibula lower end, skill loss on anterior and the lateral aspect of

the right lower leg and deep abrasion on shine of right tibia,

which was corroborated by the oral evidence of P.W.3. The

record further reveals that the claimant has taken treatment in

various hospitals for a considerable period. Taking into

consideration all the aspects i.e., the injuries sustained by

the claimant, nature and period of treatment undergone by him

in various hospitals, medical expenses incurred by the claimant,

loss of earnings sustained by him during the treatment period

and also for disability sustained by him, pain and suffering,

mental agony, transportation and extra, the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.6,51,564/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum,

which appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

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

order and decree, dated 17.05.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.281 of

MGP, J Macma_484 of 2017

2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 13.03.2023 gkv

MGP, J Macma_484 of 2017

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.484 of 2017

DATE: 13.03.2023

gkv