Tsrtc, Mahabubnagar vs Smt S Tirmal, Mahabubnagar Dist
2023 Latest Caselaw 1219 Tel

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

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.508 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation ('RTC'), questioning the order and decree,

dated 29.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.430 of 2012 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC) at Mahabubnagar

(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.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her

in a road accident that occurred on 03.04.2012. It is stated that

on the fateful day, while the claimant along with her sister,

boarded the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2636 to go to

Dhanwada, at about 19:00 p.m., when the bus reached near the

Court at the outskirts of Narayanpet town, the driver of the bus

drove the bus at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed the tractor trolley bearing No.AP 22 V 7476 from

MGP, J Macma_508_2017

the opposite direction, as a result of which, the claimant

received multiple fracture injuries all over the body.

Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital and from

there shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and thereafter she

took treatment for 21 days in Smt.Bhagwan Devi Hospital,

Hyderabad, as her leg just below knee was amputated.

According to the claimant, she was hale and healthy and

earning Rs.500/- per day by doing tailoring. Due to the

accident, she cannot operate sewing machine nor can she stand

steady for cutting clothes and thereby lost her livelihood and

source of income. Therefore, she laid the claim against the

respondent seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under

various heads.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

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

and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the

O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,400/- 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_508_2017

6. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant is that there is a contributory negligence on the

part of the driver of the tractor trolley bearing No.AP 22 V 7476,

who contributed to the said accident, but the Tribunal has not

considered the same. Further, he contended that the quantum

of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to

allow the appeal. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest

fixed by the tribunal at 9% is too high and it should not be more

than 6%.

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 her avocation and therefore, the

said order calls for no interference by this Court.

8. This Court perused the entire record and found that the

appellant-RTC except stating that there is contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of the Tactor Trolley, has not

adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove the same.

Furthermore, Ex.A.3, charge sheet, discloses that the accident

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

MGP, J Macma_508_2017

the RTC bus. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence,

the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-RTC that there is contributory negligence on the part

of the Tractor trolley, cannot be acceptable and the same is

rejected.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

considering the fact that due to the injuries suffered in the

accident, the claimant cannot continue her profession of

tailoring and considering Ex.A.13, disability certificate, issued

by the competent Medical Board assessing the percentage of

disability of the claimant at 70%, the tribunal has rightly

awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs

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

awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, 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.

1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_508_2017

10. Accordingly, the MACMA stands disposed of. While

maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the

tribunal, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is hereby

reduced to 7.5% from 9% per annum. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

14.03.2023 gms/tsr

MGP, J Macma_508_2017

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.508 of 2017

DATE: 14.03.2023

gms/tsr