The Telangana State Road ... vs K Anjaneyulu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1214 Tel

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

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1637 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation (previously Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation), questioning the order and decree, dated

16.02.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2283 of 2015 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at 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.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a road accident that occurred on 10.04.2015. It is stated

that on the fateful day, while the claimant was proceeding as a

pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No. AP 28 AG 0877 from

Chowederpally village to Katra village, at about 03:45 p.m.,

when he reached polkampally village, RTC bus bearing No.AP 28

Z 9527 driven by its driver, came in rash and negligent manner

and dashed the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell

down on the road and sustained crush injury with avulsion

MGP, J Macma_1637_2018

injury right dorsum of right foot with fracture 3, 4, 5 metatarsal

and metatarsal joint dislocation and other grievous multiple

blunt injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to

CHC Government Hospital at Kalwakurthy and later shifted to

Omni Hospital at Dilsukhnagar, where he was treated as

inpatient. According to the claimant, he was hale and healthy

and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and

contributing the entire income for the welfare of the family. Due

to the accident, he sustained 60% permanent disability as he

suffered with meta tarsal joint dislocation and underwent

surgery for doppler study of right lower limb and debridement

and k-wire fixation and fixation of 4th meta tarsal that Vac

therapy and lost his livelihood and source of income. Therefore,

he laid the claim against the respondent, owner of the bus,

seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

respondent-TSRTC, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral

and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P.

and awarded compensation of Rs.6,78,856/- with interest at 9%

per annum to be payable by the respondent. Challenging the

same, the present appeal has been filed by the TSRTC.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

MGP, J Macma_1637_2018

6. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant is that there is a contributory negligence on the

part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 28 AG 0877,

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 rider of the motorcycle while

awarding compensation. Further, he contended that the

quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and

prayed to allow the appeal.

7. 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 his income and avocation and

therefore, the said order of the Tribunal needs no interference

by this Court.

8. This Court perused the entire record. Although it is

contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of

the rider of the motorcycle on which, the claimant was

proceeding, the appellant-TSRTC did not take any steps to prove

the same such as summoning the driver of the bus, who is the

best person to speak in this regard. Furthermore, after

concluding the investigation, Police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.2

MGP, J Macma_1637_2018

stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the TSRTC bus. Therefore, in

the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the contention of the

learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-TSRTC that there is

contributory negligence on the part of the injured and rider of

the motor cycle, is not sustainable and is hereby rejected.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

considering the evidence of P.W.2, doctor and P.W.3, Billing

Manager of Omni Hospital, tribunal has rightly awarded

Rs.2,13,137/- towards medicines and treatment; Rs.6,719/-

towards O.P. charges, Lab Tests etc. and Rs.1,00,000/- towards

future medical expenses. Considering Ex.A.3, injury certificate,

the amount of Rs.35,000/- award by the Tribunal towards pain

& suffering cannot be said to be on higher side. Although the

claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per

month as agriculturist, in the absence of any proof in that

regard, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of

the claimant at Rs.3,000/-. Considering the age of the claimant

as 35 years, anc considering Ex.A.7, disability certificate, issued

by the Medical Board of Nagerkurnool, which was substantiated

by the evidence of P.W.4, member of Medical Board, the tribunal

has rightly assessed the permanent disability at 60% and rightly

MGP, J Macma_1637_2018

awarded Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of income due to

permanent disability. Thus, the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same

needs no interference by this Court. However, as regards the

interest awarded by the Tribunal, as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others1,

the claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition

till realization but not 9% as was awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of by reducing

the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum while

maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

14.03.2023 gms/tsr

1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_1637_2018

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.1637 of 2018

DATE: 14.03.2023

gms/tsr