Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc, vs Panga Rajaiah on 29 September, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2671 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the award and
decree, dated 01.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.515 of 2004 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge)
at Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2004 while the
petitioner was proceeding on his cycle, at about 01:20 PM,
when he reached near OCP-IV cross road, the offending bus
bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-4281 belonging to second
respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the petitioners cycle, caused him grievous
injuries. The Police, Ramagundam registered a case in
Cr.No.43 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section
337 of IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet.
Immediately, after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Area
Hospital, Godavarikhani and there from he was referred to
Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment
NBK, J
MACMA_2671_2008
as in-patient from 12.05.2004 to 15.05.2004 and thereafter
he was admitted in Med Bone Hospital, Godavarikhani where
he underwent treatment as in-patient for 14 days. He had
incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards medical
treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment. The
petitioner was earning Rs.18,725/- per month, which he had
lost on account of disability sustained by him in the accident
in question.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter
contending that the petitioners was put to strict proof of all
the allegations made in the claim-petition and denied the
manner in which the accident took place and also the age,
avocation and earnings of the deceased.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus
bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-4281 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if
so to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
NBK, J
MACMA_2671_2008
6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-4
were examined and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12, Ex.X-1
and Ex.X-2. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was
examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the
APSRTC was responsible for the accident causing injuries to
the petitioner in the accident and accordingly awarded an
amount of Rs.7,68,013/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs.
Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the respondent has
filed the present appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC has
submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of
the bus at fault, taking the disability at 100%.
10. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the
Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the
NBK, J
MACMA_2671_2008
driver of the APSRTC. As can be seen from the evidence of
PW-2, though he denied that he is fault for occurrence of the
accident but, during the course of cross examination he
admitted that he committed the said offence in the Court.
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 APSRTC Bus.
11. The further contention of the learned Standing Counsel
is that though the PW-3/Medical Officer opined the disability
only to the extent of 40% to 50% but, the tribunal erred in
fixing the disability at 100%. Be that as it may, the evidence
of PW-3 with regard to the evidence of disability to the extent
of 40% to 50% but, while coming to the evidence of PW-2
who is the welfare officer of the S.C.C.L, Godavarikhani, it is
clearly evident that the petitioner was removed from the
service on account of the injuries sustained by him in the
accident. Therefore, the view adopted by the learned tribunal
on this aspect holds goods and warrants no interference.
NBK, J
MACMA_2671_2008
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the
award and decree dated 01.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.515 of
2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (District
Judge), Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
29.09.2023
VRKS
NBK, J
MACMA_2671_2008
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2671 OF 2008
29.09.2023
VRKS
