Telangana High Court
Ap State Road Transport Corporation vs E.Srinivas Goud , Srinivas And Anr on 8 April, 2024
• THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
• M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2017
• AND
• M.A.C.M.A.No.2107 of 2017
• COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2016 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Judge-
cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, (for short,
'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A.137 of 2017 is filed by the
Appellant/claimant seeking to allow the Appeal by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent in O.P.
filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2107 of 2017 seeking to set-aside the order
passed by the learned Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out
of the common order passed in M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2014, dated
08.11.2016, they have been dealt with together and being disposed
of by way of this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking
compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in
a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.12.2012. It is stated
by the petitioner that on 13.12.2012, at about 3.30 hours, when
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-
28AV-6231 from Hyderabad to Shadnagar and when reached the
limits of Nandigama near Ayyappa Swamy Temple on NH-7, at that
time, one APSRTC Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-334, came in opposite
direction in a high speed, in wrong side and dashed the petitioner's
motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained the following
injuries i.e., (1) Grade-I compound comminuted fracture of the
lower third of right femur, (2) Comminuted fracture of lower pole of
right patella, (3) Fracture lower third of redious DRIJ Disruption,
(4) Closed manipulation and reduction of left shoulder dislocation,
(5) Dislocation of the left shoulder, (6) C.R.I.F. with intramodular
nail of right femur and multiple injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to area
Hospital, Shadnagar in '108' Ambulance. On the advice of Doctor,
he was admitted as inpatient in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, from
13.12.2012 to 18.12.2012 and underwent surgery and spent total
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment and still taking
treatment in different hospitals. Police, Kothur Police Station,
registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2012 under Section 338 IPC
against the driver of RTC bus. It is stated by the petitioner that
prior to accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month as Electrician. Due to the said accident, he
sustained permanent disability and deprived of his earnings and
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
hence, claimed compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- against the
respondents.
4. Respondent No.1/APSRTC filed its counter denying the
averments made in the claim petition including, age, income,
medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, involvement of RTC
Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-334, occurrence of accident and further
stated that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the bus
and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner at the time of accident and that the
compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed
to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP-29Z-334?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount?
3. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of
respondent No.1, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition
of the petitioner awarding an amount of Rs.1,71,173/- as
compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit payable by respondent No.1 alone as
the claim against Respondent No.2 was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved by the same, M.A.C.M.A.137 of 2017 is filed by the
claim petitioner seeking for enhancement of compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2107 of 2017 is filed by Respondent No.1-RTC
seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/claim petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for
Respondent No.1/RTC.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that
the learned Tribunal erred in deducting amount towards medical
expenses as the same was paid through Medi-claim policy; erred in
not granting attendant charges during the period of treatment and
rest of the period and also erred in not taking into consideration
the loss of income from avocation due to the injuries sustained by
him and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount.
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
11. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for
Respondent No.1-RTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in
awarding excess interest @ 9% per annum and came to a wrong
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus in the absence of
non-examination of any co-passenger of the bus and hence prayed
to set-aside the same.
12. Now the point that emerge for consideration is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
Point:-
13. This Court has perused the evidence and documents
available on record. The petitioner himself was examined as PW1.
He reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and deposed
about the manner of accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 on his
behalf. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he claimed some
amount from Medi Claim Company as he had taken Medical
Insurance Policy while working. He admitted that he did not file
any document to show that he was working as Electrician prior to
the accident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He denied
the suggestion that he took treatment under Arogya Sree Scheme.
PW1, in support of his contentions, got examined PW2, who is an
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
Orthopaedic Surgeon in Apollo Hospital. He deposed that on
13.12.2012, PW1 was admitted in their hospital on account of
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which are as follows:-
(1) Dislocation of the left shoulder, (2) Grade-I Compound
comminuted fracture of the lower third of right femur, (3)
Comminuted fracture of lower pole of right patella, (4) Fracture of
lower third of radius with DRUJ disruption procedure. He said
that the injuries are grievous in nature and all the above injuries
were treated with operation. He stated that the injured had metal
wires in his right wrist which were removed after six weeks and
that he still had a metal rod in his right thigh. He had absolute
bed rest for nearly 3 months and it took few months to walk with a
little limp and pain. The estimated cost of removal of metal rod
from the right thigh is about Rs.50,000/-. He stated that the
petitioner still has a limp in his walking with pain and assessed
disability of 15%. He stated that Ex.A7 is the medical bill and
Ex.A10 is the Discharge Summary given by Apollo Hospital.
14. PW3, who is working as Assistant Branch Manager in
Prudential Systems Technologies Private Limited, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad, was examined in order to prove the income of the
petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner worked in their office as
Electrical Engineer from 2010 to December 2012. Ex.A11 are the
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
computer generated pay-slips issued by their office and as per
Ex.A11, the salary of the petitioner was mentioned Rs.9,045/- per
month. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
that the petitioner can take treatment in ESI hospital as he had
paid premium to ESI.
15. It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A1-FIR shows that
P.S.Kottur registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2012 under Section
337 IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus, took up
investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the
Wound Certificate issued in the name of the petitioner by Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Shadnagar, Ex.A4
is the outpatient ticket issued by Vaidhya Vidhan parishad, CHC,
Shadnagar. Ex.A5 is the X-Ray Knee (Right) AP and LAT report
issued by Apollo Hospitals, dated 15.12.2012. Ex.A6 is the report
of MDCT SCAN Brain without contrast issued by Apollo Hospitals
dated 13.12.2012. Ex.A7 is the inpatient bill issued by Apollo
Hospital, dated 18.12.2012. Ex.A8 is the bunch of medical bills.
Ex.A9 are the investigation reports nine in number. Ex.A10 is the
Discharge Summary issued by Department of Orthopaedics in
Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A11 are the computer generated
pay slips for the months of October and November, 2012 issued by
Prudential Systems Technologies Private Limited in favour of the
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
petitioner. Ex.A12 is the Summary of accounts of petitioner in
ICICI Bank.
16. The above oral and documentary evidence shows that as per
Ex.A1, Police, Kottur Police Station, registered a case in Crime
No.176 of 2012, took up investigation and filed charge sheet under
Ex.A2. Exs.A3 to A8 shows about the injuries and treatment
undergone by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
APSRTC Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-334, due to which, the petitioner
sustained injuries and had undergone treatment.
17. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for
respondent No.1/APSRTC that the learned Tribunal came to a
wrong conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-334
in the absence of non-examination of co-passenger of the bus.
18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case between Sunita & Ors
and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr, reported
in Civil Appeal No.1665 of 2019, wherein it was held that "The
approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault
with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyse the
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the
matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that non
examination of 'best witness' in Motor Accident Claim cases is not
fatal. The bench comprising of Hon'ble Sri Justice AM Khanwilkar
and Hon'ble Sri Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that a hyper
technical and trivial approach should not be adopted in a case for
compensation under the Act.
20. In the present case, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with
the documentary evidence filed under Ex.A1 to A12 clearly
establish that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-334
which came in opposite direction in a high speed and dashed
against the petitioner's motor cycle. Hence, the contention of the
respondent/RTC that the learned Tribunal erred in non-
examination of co-passenger of the bus, is unsustainable.
21. So far as awarding of compensation is concerned, the
learned Tribunal, by taking into consideration Ex.A11-Pay slips
issued to the petitioner by Prudential Systems Technologies Private
Limited, Hyderabad, fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as
Rs.9,045/- and calculated loss of earnings for five months which
comes to Rs.45,225/- which needs no interference by this Court.
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
22. The only aspect which this Court intends to deal with is with
regard to awarding medical expenses under mediclaim policy. It is
the contention of the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that
the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding medical expenses which
were incurred by the petitioner based only on flimsy ground that
the petitioner had paid the bills by obtaining medi-claim policy.
This Court sees no force in the said contention since the said
reimbursement of expenses under an independent contract of
insurance has no bearing upon the claim under a statutory
liability. Moreover, the claim petitioner had paid premium for
purchasing the said insurance. Thus, the benefit which emanated
from the said contract, cannot be adjusted against the
compensation payable under the Act. In a recent judgment
delivered by Bombay High Court reported in the case between
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit
Chandrakant Rakvi and Ors1, the issue of double benefit has
been decided in a similar manner based on the decision of the Apex
Court in Helen C.Rebello v.Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation and Another 2. It was held by the Court that the
nature of the proceedings under the Act is of relevance and a claim
petition for compensation in regard to motor accident filed by the
2020 ACJ 691
1999 ACJ 10 (SC)
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
injured is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional
sense. Thus, the benefits emanating from an independent and
unconnected contract of insurance cannot be considered by the
Tribunal as it besets with variables rooted in contract.
23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and also based on
the above decision, the petitioner is entitled for medical expenses
which were claimed through Mediclaim policy. As per Ex.A7, the
total amount incurred by the petitioner is Rs.2,05,093/-. Out of
the said amount, the petitioner was given authorization for an
amount of Rs.1,99,145/-under Medi-claim. The petitioner is also
entitled for balance of Rs.5,948/- which was paid by him through
deposit. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum
of Rs.50,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards
future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and
Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicine. Thus,
in all, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.3,70,318/- which is payable by Respondent No.1 alone as
Respondent No.2, who is the driver of the RTC Bus, is shown as
not necessary party to the petition.
24. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,
this Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
MGP,J
Macma Nos.137 and 2107 of 2017
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 reduces the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per
annum.
25. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2017, filed by the
claimant, is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,71,173/- to Rs.3,70,318/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization payable by Respondent No.1
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw
the same without furnishing any security.
26. Also, M.A.C.M.A.No.2107 of 2017, filed by Appellant/RTC, is
partly allowed reducing the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum. In both the appeals, there
shall be no order as to costs.
27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.08.04.2024
ysk
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
