Telangana High Court
The Managing Director vs Akula Yadagiri on 1 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1102 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri A.Sriniva Reddy, for the
appellant-TSRTC and the learned counsel Sri A.Yadava Reddy for
the respondent no.1-claimant.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-TSRTC
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak (for
short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 2019, dated 10.11.2022,
thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the TSRTC.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they
are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4.1. On 24.06.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., while the claimant was going
to his work place on his bicycle and when he reached near bus stand
of Jogipet, the respondent no.2, who is driver of RTC bus bearing
LNA,J
registration No.AP-29-Z-2655, drove the bus in rash and negligent
manner in high speed and hit the claimant, due to which he received
multiple fractures to his left leg pelvis region left iliac bone and
fracture of right sacral bone and received injuries to hands, face and
other parts of the body; that immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Jogipet and from there he was shifted to
Sunrise Hospital at Sangareddy, where surgery was done. The
Police, Jogipet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.100/2016 under
Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed
charge sheet.
4.2. The claimant filed claim petition against appellant under
Section 166(1)(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest from the
date of the petition till the date of realization.
4.3. It is contended that the claimant was working as Supervisor in
Vittaleshwara Kirana shop at Jogipet town, and was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, that due to accident, he is not in a position to
LNA,J
walk and do any work and he lost past and future income and is still
undergoing treatment. As such, he claims for compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The respondent no.1-RTC, filed counter denying the
allegations made by the claimant in the claim petition. It is
contended that claimant himself contributed to the accident while
going on bicycle in the middle of the road and due to his fault,
accident occurred and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The respondent no.2-driver of RTC bus filed counter denying
all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that
claimant is responsible for the accident as he did not control his
bicycle and dashed to RTC bus, that there is no fault of respondent
no.2. He also denied the age, avocation, earnings and disability of
claimant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
LNA,J
i) Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.2 of crime vehicle bus bearing
No.AP-29-Z-2655 ?
ii)Whether petitioner/claimant is entitled for
compensation, if so, what amount, from whom ?
iii) To what relief ?
8. In order to substantiate the case, claimant himself was
examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of
TSRTC, neither any witness was examined nor any document was
marked. Respondent no.2 himself examined as RW.1, but no
documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,15,288/- with proportionate costs and interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of
amount.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant-TSRTC, while reiterating the averments made in the
LNA,J
counter, submitted that the Tribunal erroneously decreed the O.P.
He further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus and therefore, TSRTC is not liable to pay the
compensation. He also submitted that Tribunal erred in considering
the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/- without there
being any proof of income and submitted that Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for two fractures,
Rs.1,02,288/- towards medical bills, Rs.25,000/- for minor injuries
and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, attendant charges and extra
nourishment and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and finally,
prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/claimant
submitted that the Tribunal granted just and proper compensation
on due consideration of evidence, material placed on record. He
further submitted that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the
appellant failed to make out any case warranting this Court to
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
LNA,J
Consideration :
12. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the
Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. It is pertinent
to mention that Ex.P4-charge sheet, which shows that respondent
no.2 is shown as accused. It reveals that during investigation, the
investigating officer came to conclusion that driver of the crime
vehicle drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and hit the cycle
of the claimant, due to which he sustained severe injuries.
Considering the oral evidence adduced by P.W.1, coupled with
Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.P3-scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch,
Ex.P4-charge sheet, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the driver
of RTC bus was responsible for causing the accident by driving the
bus in rash and negligent manner.
13. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, the
claimant has not filed any document in proof of his income as on the
date of the accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking into
LNA,J
consideration, the age, avocation, date of accident, and oral evidence
of claimant, had assessed the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.7,000/- notionally. The Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High
Courts in catena of judgments held that income of the deceased/
injured cannot be assessed with arithmetic precision and the
Tribunal has to make some guess work. In the present case, the
claimant stated that he was working as supervisor in kirana shop
and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to accident, he is not in
a position to walk and do any work and he lost past and future
income and is still undergoing treatment. The claimant, except
examined himself as P.W.1, did not examine any other witness or
place any material in proof of his income. However, considering the
age, avocation, date of accident of the claimant, in considered
opinion of this Court, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month and the appellant failed to
make out any case to interfere with the assessment of monthly
income of the claimant.
LNA,J
14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant with regard to quantum of compensation towards fracture
injuries. A perusal of Ex.P2-wound certificate, Ex.P5-outpatient
ticket, Ex.P7-discharge summary, would show that claimant
sustained closed left iliac crest fracture, pubic symphonies
dislocation, multiple abrasions over both the lower limbs, and
surgery was done to the claimant. From the above documentary
evidence, in considered opinion of this Court that claimant
sustained two fracture injuries and other injuries and he underwent
surgery.
15. Perusal of award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that
Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- compensation towards two
fractures, each Rs.1,00,000/-. On perusal of record, the claimant
sustained two fracture injuries and underwent surgery for the
fracture to left iliac wing and right sacral bone. Considering the
nature and gravity of fractures sustained by the claimant and also
considering the fact that the claimant underwent surgery for the
LNA,J
above fracture, in considered opinion of this Court, the
compensation awarded for two fractures is just and reasonable and
needs no interference by this Court. In fact, the Tribunal failed to
award any compensation towards pain and suffering.
16. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel
for appellant that Tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards
medical bills, minor injuries, transportation, attendant charges, extra
nourishment and loss of amenities etc., are concerned, the appellant
failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the award passed
by the Tribunal. A perusal of award discloses that the Tribunal by
duly considering Ex.P8-final bill, Ex.P9-other medical bills, etc., had
rightly awarded compensation under the above heads and therefore,
there is no need to interfere with the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on other counts.
17. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-TSRTC is
directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
LNA,J
copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already
deposited by the appellant. On such deposit, the respondent
no.1/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 01.04.2024
kkm
