Telangana High Court
Apsrtc vs Gandamalla Ashok , Ashok Kumar on 2 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1590 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Special Sessions Judge for trial
of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act -cum- Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for
short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.996 of 2012, dated 14.07.2015,
the appellant/respondent in O.P. filed the present Appeal seeking
to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned
Tribunal.
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 nutshell are that the petitioner filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12%
per annum for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a resident of
Thungapahad Village, Nalgonda District and on 29.09.2012, at
about 3.30p.m., when the petitioner was going to Thungapahad
Village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24C 4741 along with his
friend Sri T.Guravaiah as a pillion rider in order to collect
mechanical charges from one Ramanuja Reddy and when going in
MGP,J
a moderate speed, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 came in
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
and dashed the petitioner's motor cycle near Earanna Kalva. As a
result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as well as simple
injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital,
Miryalguda and later admitted in Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad and
underwent treatment from 20.09.2012 to 04.10.2012 and again got
treated by Dr.Shankar Naik at Miryalguda, who fixed rods for
fracture injuries. The petitioner incurred an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, etc. Based on a
complaint, Police, Tripuraram P.S., registered a case in Crime
No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against driver of APSRTC
Bus. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he was
hale and healthy and was doing mechanical works and was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the
doctor advised him to take bed rest for one year and therefore, he
sustained loss of nearly Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, filed claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @
12% per annum.
4. The respondent/RTC filed its counter denying the averments
made in the claim petition including, employment of the petitioner,
narration of the accident, involvement of the petitioner in the
MGP,J
accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the
petitioner at the time of accident. It also contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 24C 4741
and that the amount awarded is excess and exorbitant and hence,
prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned
Tribunal.
5. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were
examined and Exs. A1 to A5 got marked. On behalf of the
respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were
marked on their behalf.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence
available on record and perusing the entire documents, had
allowed the claim petition of the petitioner by awarding
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the
amount which shall be deposited by the respondent within two
months from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant/RTC preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
Appellant -RTC as well as learned counsel for the
respondent/claim petitioner. Perused the record.
MGP,J
8. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC is
that the Tribunal wrongly attributed negligence on part of the
driver of RTC bus Bearing NO.AP 24Z 0019, erred in assessing the
age and income of the injured without any documentary evidence.
It also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the owner
and insurer of motor cycle as necessary parties to the petition and
hence, prayed to set-aside the said order.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant in O.P. contended that the learned Tribunal,
after considering the entire evidence and documents available on
record, has awarded reasonable compensation for which
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
10. Now the point that arise for determination is,
(a)Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers
from any irregularity?
POINT:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant/RTC is that there is no negligence on part of the
driver of the RTC Bus for the alleged accident. In this regard, it is
pertinent to refer Ex.A1-FIR which shows that Tripuraram police
registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC
MGP,J
for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus
bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 which came in a high speed and dashed
the motorcycle of the respondent/injured. The police, after
conducting thorough investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A2
which itself established that the driver of the RTC Bus was
responsible for the accident. As there is no negligence on part of
the driver of the motorcycle, the insurer of the said motorcycle is
not made as a party to the petition. Hence, the contention of the
appellant that there is no negligence on part of the driver of the
RTC Bus and that the tribunal failed to consider the owner and
insurer of motor cycle as necessary parties to the petition, is
unsustainable. The appellant-RTC cannot escape their liability for
mere non-examination of the insurer of the motorcycle. Moreover,
the appellant-RTC except making allegations that the driver of the
motorcycle is responsible for the accident, had not adduced any
evidence to support their version. Coming to the age of the
injured, Exs.A1 and A2 shows that the petitioner was aged 22
years and hence considering the above age of the injured along
with all other aspects, including the percentage of disability and
earning capacity, the learned Tribunal, by applying relevant
multiplier, had awarded reasonable compensation. Hence, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned
MGP,J
Tribunal which are in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is
devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.02.02.2024
ysk
