Telangana High Court
G Ashok , Ashok Kumar, Nalgonda Town And ... vs Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad on 2 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1776 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded 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/claim
petitioner filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the 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
a moderate speed, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 came in
MGP,J
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 the
fracture injuries. The petitioner incurred an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, etc. Based on a
complaint, P.S., Tripuraram, registered a case in Crime No.99 of
2012 under Section 338 of IPC against the 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 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
accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the
petitioner at the time of accident and that the amount claimed is
MGP,J
excessive and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it. It also
contended that as the petition suffers defect of non-joinder of
owner and insurer of the motorcycle, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
5. On behalf of the claimant in O.P., 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 costs and 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.
7. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner in O.P. filed the present Appeal
along with a petition seeking for enhancement of the compensation
awarded vide I.A.No.2 of 2017 (M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3261 of 2017).
MGP,J
8. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for
Appellant as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondent-RTC.
Perused the record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant is that
though the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,09,204/-, but had
awarded only a sum of Rs.8,00,000 which is meager to the pain
and suffering suffered by the petitioner. He also stated that the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 9% instead of
8% and hence prayed to allow the application filed for
enhancement of compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-RTC
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence
adduced and documents filed has awarded reasonable
compensation for interference of this Court is not necessary.
11. Now the points that arise for determination are,
Whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement
of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal?
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. The petitioner himself was examined as PW1.
MGP,J
He reiterated the contents made in his claim application and in
support of his contentions, he got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his
behalf. Ex.A1-FIR shows that Tripuraram police registered a case
in Crime No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against the
respondent 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 petitioner. 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. Further, in the said accident,
the appellant sustained compound fracture of right ankle and right
leg, injury on head. PWs 2 to 5 are the Doctors who treated the
appellant and their evidence is supported by the evidence of PW1.
Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by PW5, who is a Civil
Surgeon and also a Member of District Medical Board, Nalgonda
assessing the disability sustained by the petitioner at 70%. The
evidence of PWs 2 to 4 also discloses about the admissions of PW1
in their hospital, treatment given by them to the injury suffered by
him, operations conducted for removal of right leg below knee and
the expenditure incurred by PW1 in connection with his treatment.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
MGP,J
evidence and documents marked, has rightly came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0019.
13. Coming to the aspect of awarding of compensation to the
appellant, the learned Tribunal after considering the age, avocation
and monthly income of injured, applied multiplier '18' and
assessed the loss of earning capacity as Rs.7,56,000/-. It also
awarded Rs.2,53,204/- towards medical bills incurred by the
appellant as per Ex.A4. Hence arrived at a total compensation of
Rs.9,09,204/-. But since the claim application filed by the
petitioner is for Rs.8,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal limited its
compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. But, as per decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another 1, the
Hon'ble Court had categorically stated that there is no restriction
that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount
exceeding the claim amount.
14. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to
Rs.9,09,204/- . The appellant shall pay the deficit Court fee on the
enhanced amount. The respondent-RTC is directed to deposit the
(2011) 10 SCC 756
MGP,J
enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.02.02.2024
ysk
