The Telangana State Road ... vs P. Bagyamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1215 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.706 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 1173 of 2017 dated 23.11.2018, the present

appeal is filed by the Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the

Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and

Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Jangaon

Bus Depot, Warangal District respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, she filed a petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries

sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 06.03.2017. On the

fateful day, at about 5-00 p.m. she was proceeding on bike bearing No.

TS 08 EL 0285 along with her son from Boduppal from Ghatkesar and

when she reached Yamnampet X road, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z

1716 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed

her bike, due to which she fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries

and fractures all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Aditya

Hospital, Boduppal by 108 Ambulance for fist aid and later she was

shifted to NIMS and admitted as inpatient. She spent more than

Rs.7,50,000/- towards her medical expenses. According to the petitioner,

she was doing tailoring and embroidery work and earning Rs.10,000/- per

month. Thus the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

against the respondents jointly and severally.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter disputing the manner in

which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the petitioner,

nature of injuries and the treatment taken by her. It is further contended

that the compensation amount granted is highly excessive and therefore,

prays to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 6

were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Ex.X1. On behalf

of respondents, RW-1 was examined and no document was marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,031,000/- towards compensation

to the petitioner along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally and the petition was dismissed against

the respondent No.3.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 and 2-Corporation submitted that the tribunal committed

irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1716 without

there being any acceptable evidence on record and that the tribunal erred

in considering the disability as 30% even though the disability certificate

is not issued by the Medical board and that the tribunal erred in taking the

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month even though injured is a

house wife and non-earning person and therefore, prayed to set aside the

order passed by the tribunal.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to sustain the

impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the learned Tribunal has

awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned

Standing counsel for the Insurance Company pleaded that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, as there is no

oral or documentary evidence was produced by the Insurance Company

to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle,

considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary

evidence produced by her, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the

offending vehicle. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the

finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioner, she sustained grievous injuries and fractures in the said

accident and due to the above injuries, she became permanently disabled

and lost her earning capacity. In order to prove her case, she examined

PWs.2 to 6. PW-2 Orthopedic Consultant in Aditya Hospital, Uppal, who

deposed that PW-1 sustained i) fracture of both bones of left leg, ii)

fracture of both bones of right lower limb, iii) degloving injury on left leg

and iv) fracture of ankle joint, which are grievous in nature. He further

deposed that PW-1 required second surgery after one and half to two

years to remove the foreign body material like stainless steel implants

which costs about Rs.70,000/-. She is suffering with permanent partial

disability with knee stiffness and ankle stiffness of 30% to 40%.

11. PW-3 Plastic Surgeon, Head of the Department in NIMS deposed

about the treatment taken by PW-1 in their hospital. He further deposed

that PW-1 joined in their hospital on 18.3.2017 and was discharged on

25.3.2017 and again she admitted on 20.4.2017 for skin grafting and was

discharged on 23.5.2017. PW-4 Orthopedic Surgeon and Faculty in

Department of Orthopedics in NIMS stated that PW-1 came to him for

disability certificate on 1.6.2018 and that on examination, he found that

she is suffering with post operative status of bilateral ankle injuries viz.,

compound fracture dislocation right ankle and compound fracture of both

bones left leg distal 3rd bilateral SSG ankles with post traumatic stiffness.

She has permanent partial disability of 30% in both lower limbs. Ex.A11

disability certified was issued by him.

12. PW.5 Billing Manager in Aditya Hospital deposed that PW-1 paid

an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- by way of cash. PW-6 Billing

Manager/Assistant Registrar, NIMS deposed that the petitioner paid

Rs.84,289/-. According to the petitioner, she was aged 45 years and was

a house wife. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the

tribunal fixed the disability of PW-1 at 30% and by considering the

services of PW-1 as house wife, the tribunal has taken her income at

Rs.3,000/-, added 25% towards future prospects and by applying

multiplier '14', an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- is awarded towards 30%

disability sustained by her. Further considering the nature of injuries

sustained by her and the treatment taken by her, the tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.5,19,289/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards

pain and sufferance, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.15,000/-

towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment

and Rs.70,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus in all, the

tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,03,000/- under various heads, which

is just and reasonable. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the tribunal has rightly awarded the reasonable compensation with well

reasoned calculation. 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.

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

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

14.03.2023.

pgp