Telangana High Court
Smt. Gaddi Oddemma vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1013 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Nizamabad, in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2016, dated 11.12.2017, the
appellant/claim petitioner preferred the present appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the injuries
sustained by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on
17.11.2015. As per the claim petitioner, on 17.11.2015 at about
6.00 hours at Station road, Nizamabad, while the petitioner was
discharging her duty of cleaning and sweeping the road, at that
time one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-1918 came from her
behind driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a
high speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner
fell down on the road and the Bus ran over her left leg, due to
which the petitioner sustained fracture and crush injury over her
left leg, amputation of left leg below the knee, injuries on right leg,
MGP,J
right knee, hands and head injury. Immediately after the accident,
she was shifted to Government Hospital Nizamabad, from there to
Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where she was treated as inpatient
from 18.11.2015 to 09.12.2015 and she underwent operation on
28.11.2015 for amputation of her left leg below the knee. She
further contended that she incurred Rs.2,00,000 for her medical
expenses and due to the said injury, she became permanently
disabled and lost her earning capacity. Hence, filed claim petition
seeking compensation against the respondents.
4. Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the
claim petition and stated that the claim petitioner alone is
responsible for the alleged incident and that there is no rash and
negligent driving on part of the driver of the RTC Bus and that the
compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the
following issues:-
(i) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the motor
accident with the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-1918
due to rash and negligent driving by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what extent and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
MGP,J
6. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner herself was
examined as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6
and Ex.C1 on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was
examined.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.4,49,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied
with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner
has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-RTC.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
is that though the claim petitioner had proved her case by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence and by relying upon
Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1, but the learned Tribunal without
considering the same had awarded meagre amount and prayed to
allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-
RTC argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the
MGP,J
aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both sides. The claimant as PW1 has reiterated the
contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of
accident and also injuries sustained by her and amputation done
to her left leg below knee. In order to prove the same, she got
examined PW2. PW2, who is working as CMO in Gandhi Hospital,
deposed that on 18.11.2015, PW1 was admitted in the Hospital for
the injuries sustained to her in a road traffic accident. On
examination, it is found that there was a crush injury of her left
foot.
13. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that the entire treatment
was done under Arogyasri Scheme at free of cost and also
accepted that there is no mention of disability in Ex.A5 and Ex.C1
and denied the other suggestions.
14. Though PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing
worthy was elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence.
MGP,J
15. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the RTC Bus was
examined. RW1, in his evidence has stated that on the date of
accident i.e., on 17.11.2015 at about 6.00 AM, he was driving the
Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-1918 on the Station Road, Nizamabad
slowly and consciously and due to sudden attempt by the appellant
to cross the road, the accident occurred and it was due to
carelessness of the appellant and that there is no rash and
negligence on his side and the petitioner herself is responsible for
the accident.
16. In the cross-examination, he admitted that police filed
criminal case against him and he faced departmental enquiry and
denied the other suggestions.
17. It is pertinent to state that RW1, being the driver, obviously
will not accept his fault. However, he has not taken any steps to
give complaint in the police station if at all there is no negligence
on his part. Furthermore, Police, after thorough investigation, laid
charge sheet against the driver of the RTC i.e., RW1. Under these
circumstances, the evidence of RW1 holds no water.
18. It is pertinent to state that the claim petitioner, apart from
adducing cogent and convincing evidence, also relied upon
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1. Ex.A1-FIR
discloses that based on a complaint, the Nizamabad I Town Police
MGP,J
Station have registered a case in Crime No.409 of 2015 under
Section 337 IPC, took up investigation and laid charge sheet under
Ex.A3 against the driver of the RTC Bus. Ex.A4 is the injury
certificate which discloses the injuries sustained by the claim
petitioner. Ex.A5 is the photo of the petitioner showing the
amputation of her left leg. Ex.A6 is the X-ray. Ex.C1 is the case
sheet which discloses that the claimant was admitted in the
hospital on 18.11.2015 and underwent surgery on 28.11.2015 and
was discharged on 09.12.2015 with crush injury. Therefore, from
the above documents, it is clear that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and the
petitioner had sustained injuries and undergone treatment.
Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the
said finding.
19. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned
Tribunal by taking into consideration the age and avocation of the
appellant, fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/-.
As the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 60 years
and as she suffered with 60% disability, this Court is inclined to
add 10% towards future prospects to the established income of the
appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
MGP,J
others 1. Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.5,500/-. Since the appellant was 60 years old at the time of
the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the guidelines
laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2. As per the evidence of PW2, the disability sustained
by the appellant is 60%. Therefore, the total loss of income
incurred by the appellant due to said disability comes to
Rs.3,56,400/-(Rs.5,500 x 12 x 9 x 60%). Also, considering the
nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the period of
treatment, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of
Rs.75,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment which
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all,
the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,81,400/-.
20. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,49,400/- to
Rs.4,81,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
the respondent within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.13.02.2024
ysk
