Telangana High Court
Duragam Hanumanthu,Anand Rao vs Nagula Durgaiah And Another on 19 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2585 of 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
19.03.2018 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.160 of 2017 by the Additional Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions
Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities
against Women-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellant-
petitioner preferred the present Appeal praying this Court
seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of
the Motor Vehicle Act, before the learned Tribunal,
claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred
on 20.01.2017.
04. According to petitioner, on 13.12.2014
petitioner along with other passengers were proceeding in
an Auto Rickshaw bearing No. TS 01 UB 0539 from
Gangapur (V) to Kagaznagar, at about 08:45 AM., when the
said auto reached near Punjumeraguda bus stage, all of a
sudden, one TSRTC bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 came in
rash and negligent manner with high speed, driven by
respondent No.1 and dashed the said auto in opposite
direction, due to which petitioner sustained injury on left
temporal region, left upper eyebrow, multiple injuries all
over the body. Petitioner was shifted to Government
Hospital, Mancherial for treatment and thereafter he took
treatment in private hospitals. The Police registered a case
in Crime No.13 of 2017 for the offence under Section 337
of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1-Driver of
TSRTC.
05. As per petitioner, he was hale and healthy prior
to accident and due to injuries caused in the said accident,
he suffered mentally, physically and financially. He was
aged about 40 years and doing mason work and earning
Rs.12,000/- per month. As the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent on the part of respondent No.1-driver of
TSRTC bus, TSRTC is liable to pay compensation to
petitioner.
06. Respondent-RTC filed counter denying the
averments of the claim application, occurrence of accident,
rash and negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is
contended that there is contributory negligence on the part
of the auto driver and that the compensation claimed is out
of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and sought for
dismissal of claim petition.
08. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident had occurred resulting in
injuries to petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of
TSRTC bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 by its driver?
ii. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation,
if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of
owner and insurer of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. TS 01 UB
0539?
iv. To what relief?
09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioner got
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.
On behalf of respondent-RTC, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced.
10. Considering the claim of petitioner and counter
affidavit filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition,
awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with interest
@ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 & 2
therein.
11. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellant-petitioner has filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
12. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel
for appellant-petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
respondents. Perused the material available on record.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for
appellant-petitioner is that though appellant proved his
case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the
documents under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned Tribunal
without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager
amount towards compensation and sought for
enhancement of compensation amount.
14. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel
for respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal
has adequately granted the compensation and the same
needs no interference by this Court.
15. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellant-petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation amount in addition to
the compensation amount granted vide impugned
Order and Decree dated 19.03.2018 by the learned
Tribunal?
P O I N T:
16. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
17. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and reiterated
the contents of claim application. Apart from oral
evidence, petitioner also relied upon documentary evidence
marked under Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the
Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2017 for the
offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against
respondent No.1-Driver of TSRTC and took up investigation
and after completion of investigation, Ex.A2-Charge sheet
was filed against the driver of the bus stating that the
accident took place due to negligence on the part of bus
driver. Ex.A4-Registration Certificate of TSRTC bus
bearing No. AP 01 Z 0023 shows that TSRTC is the owner
of the crime bus.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW1,
coupled with the documentary evidence available on
record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence
on the part of the driver of bus. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the
Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in
proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present
appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
19. Petitioner has filed Ex.A3-Injury Certificate and
Ex.A6-Photo of injuries which discloses that he sustained
three simple injuries and as per Ex.A5-Outpatient card
petitioner undergone further treatment. In so far as the
quantum of compensation is concerned, the
learned Tribunal considering the above injuries of
petitioner, has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for
injuries and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses,
transportation, extra nourishment and attendant
charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of expectation
of life and amenities and loss of earnings, which is
at lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
interfere with the above quantum of compensation
and the same has to be increased. Ex.A3-Injury
certificate discloses three simple injuries, therefore,
petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/- for each injury
which comes to Rs.30,000/-, Rs.5,000/- towards
attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- for extra
nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and
sufferance. Thus, in all, petitioner is entitled to
compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is
increased to Rs.50,000/-. In so far as interest is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization and
the same is held good. The enhanced
compensation also shall carry interest at the rate of
7.5 percent per annum. The enhanced compensation
amount along with interest shall be deposited by
respondents-RTC within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security.
21. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 19-APR-2024
KHRM
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
W
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2585 of 2018
Date: 19-APR-2024
KHRM
