The Tsrtc vs A. Naga Babu
2023 Latest Caselaw 4159 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                       AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                              I.A.No.1 of 2019
                                  IN/AND
                        M.A.C.M.A.No.3424 of 2019
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

        Heard Mr.V.Atchutaram, learned counsel for the appellant and

     perused the material on record.


2.      I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed for condonation of delay of 81 days in

filing the appeal.

3.      On due consideration of the reasons stated in the accompanying

affidavit and also hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner/appellant, we are of the considered opinion that a strong

case for allowing the I.A. has been made out.

4.      Accordingly, the application stands allowed and the delay of 81

days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

5.      With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant the main

appeal was heard.

6.      The appeal is preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), challenging the award dated

27.03.2019

passed in M.V.O.P.No.601 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal - cum - The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court

at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

7. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded the

compensation of Rs.31,29,688/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum.

8. The claimant in the instant case is Mr.A.Naga Babu, was the Head

Constable in the Police Department who met with an accident on

20.04.2012 when he was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant

Corporation i.e., bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6765. As a result of the said

accident, there was crush injury on the left limb of the claimant. In the

course of treatment, the left limb of the claimant above the knee was

required to be amputated and he was operated for the said reason on

06.06.2012.

9. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, for the compensation in respect of the injury suffered by

the claimant. In the course of the evidence, the claimants have examined

PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, the three doctors who had treated the claimant

have found the disability @ 85%. The District Medical Board have

assessed the disability @ 80%.

10. The Tribunal in the course of computing the compensation has

accepted the percentage of disability assessed by the District Medical

Board and quantified the compensation accordingly.

11. There is no cross objection or a cross appeal filed by the claimant

seeking for enhancement of the said compensation. The appellant in the

instant case have raised a contention that the claimant was negligent

which resulted in accident. It was also contended that since the claimant

was the government employ, there has been no loss of earning capacity

as such and for that purpose also the amount of compensation quantified

needs to be interfered with.

12. However, perusal of the pleadings and the evidence which has

come on record, undisputedly the claimant in the case met with an

accident which occurred on 20.04.2012, the vehicle involved in the said

accident was the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation, i.e., bus

bearing No.AP 11 Z 6765. Further, as a result of the said accident, the

left limb of the claimant has to be amputated above knee. The District

Medical Board which had examined the disability of the claimant had

assessed the disability @ 80%.

13. In the light of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case and

the quantum of compensation assessed also being done taking percentage

of disability @80% as has been certified by the District Medical Board,

we do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in reaching to the said

calculation and also quantifying the compensation at Rs.31,29,688/-.

Another fact which needs to be considered at this juncture that the

appellant corporation has not led any evidence in rebuttal in support of

this contentions and in the absence of which also, we do not find any

substantial material calling for an interference with the impugned award.

Thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J 20.11.2023 Aqs