Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs Panthini Sridhar Rao on 11 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2164 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant-TSRTC (prior to
bifurcation known as APSRTC) being aggrieved by the order
dated 10.11.2016 passed in O.P No.89 of 2015, on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 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 petitioners,
who are the husband and children of the deceased-Panthini
Premalatha had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-
with costs and interest on account of the death of the deceased-
Premalatha, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 06.12.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on
06.12.2014 at about 11.00 AM, when the deceased, who is a
pillion rider on the motor cycle along with her sister
Ms.T.Poornima, who was riding the Pleasure two wheeler
bearing No.AP-20R-3184 from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when
reached N.G.R.I Gate, Habsiguda at about 11.30 AM, one 2
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed the said Pleasure
two wheeler motor cycle from the backside. As a result, the
persons present on the said two wheeler, fell down on the road
and received serious injuries and fractures. Immediately, they
were shifted to Whitus Hospital at Habsiguda and the doctors
gave First Aid and as the deceased sustained grievous injuries,
she was referred to Yashoda Hospital at Secunderabad. The
deceased was admitted as inpatient in the said hospital on the
same day and while undergoing treatment, she died on
17.12.2014 at about 10.08 AM due to grievous injuries and
fractures sustained by her in vital parts of the body. Later, the
dead body of the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital at
Secunderabad for conducting post-mortem examination. The
P.S., Osmania University, registered a case in Crime No.440 of
2014 for the offence under Section 337 IPC. It was submitted by
the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 33 years and
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by giving tuitions to the
upper primary school students and used to contribute the same
for maintenance of her family. It is further stated by the
petitioners that the deceased was preparing for groups and DSC 3
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
as she studied Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Education,
Master of Business Administration and she has also qualified in
APTET in July 2011 and if she is alive, she would have got
Government job and would have provided better amenities to
the petitioners. As the deceased was no more, the petitioners,
with a great hardship, filed the claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent-
Corporation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-RTC filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition, manner in
which the accident occurred, denied the age, occupation,
income and health condition of the deceased and further
contended that the compensation claimed is excessive,
exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the deceased by name P.Premalatha died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1039?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
3. To what relief ?
6. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the
petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A17 were
got marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was
examined and no documents were marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the
petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of
Rs.17,45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
which is payable by the respondent-TSRTC within one month
from the date of order.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-TSRTC filed the
present Appeal.
9. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant-
TSRTC and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused
the material available on record.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is
that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the driver of
the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039; erred in assessing the 5
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
income of the deceased without proper evidence; erred in
awarding compensation towards Medicines and Investigations
and also failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motor
cycle as necessary parties to the petition and hence awarded
excess and exorbitant compensation.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, awarded
reasonable compensation for which the interference of this
Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the points that arise for determination are,
1. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire record and also the
evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. PW1, who is the
husband of the deceased, reiterated the contents made in the
claim petition and deposed that on 06.12.2014, at about 11.00
AM, when his wife along with her sister T.Poornima were going
on Pleasure two wheeler from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when
they reached near NGRI Gate, Habsiguda at about 11.30 AM, 6
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came from backside in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed their
two wheeler vehicle. As a result, they both fell down and
sustained grievous injuries and fractures and the vehicle was
also damaged. The deceased died while undergoing treatment
at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. Due to the
said accident, police, Osmania University, registered a case in
Crime No.440 of 2014 against the driver of the said RTC bus for
his rash and negligent driving.
14. It is also pertinent to mention that PW2, who is not only
an eye witness to the accident, but also a victim in the accident,
stated in her evidence that when she, along with her sister -
deceased Premalatha were going on their Pleasure two wheeler
motor cycle from Malkajgiri to Uppal and when reached
Habsiguda NGRI gate at about 11.30 AM, one APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP11Z1039 came in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed and dashed their two wheeler from backside. As
a result, they both sustained grievous injuries and fractures
and were shifted to Whitus Hospital, Habsiguda and later, after
rendering first aid, as her sister condition was serious, she was
referred to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. Due to multiple 7
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
injuries and fractures caused to the internal parts of the body,
her sister died on 17.12.2014. She firmly deposed that the
death of her sister occurred only due to the internal injuries and
multiple injuries and fractures sustained by her in the accident
that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039. Exs.A1 to A17
support the contention of PW2. Ex.A1-Copy of FIR shows
that a case has been registered in Crime NO.440 of 2014 by the
P.S., Osmania University against the driver of the APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP11Z1039. Exs.A4 & A5 shows that the cause of
death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by her
in the accident. Ex.A6 is the copy of charge sheet which shows
that the police, after thorough investigation, had laid charge
sheet against the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z
1039. So, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A7, it is clear that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of APSRC Bus which resulted in the death of the
deceased-Premalatha. Hence, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that there is no negligence on part of 8
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
the driver of the said RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 is
unsustainable.
15. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is with regard to awarding compensation towards
Medicines and Investigations. In this regard, it is pertinent to
refer the evidence of PW3, who is a Resident Medical Officer of
Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and who stated in his evidence
that the deceased Premalatha was admitted in their Hospital on
06.12.2014 pertaining to a road traffic accident that occurred
on 06.12.2014. Upon examination by him, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgeries to that
effect which are mentioned as under :-
Injuries sustained by the deceased:-
1. RTA with poly trauma
2. Pelvic fracture with right iliac wing fracture, right superior and inferior pubicf rami frcture right sacrum fracture.
3. Crush avulsion injury around pelvis with degloving injury of skin.
4. Left anterior abdominal wall selulities with sepsis.
Surgeries undergone by the deceased:-
1. Debridement plus haemostasis under general anesthesia on 06.12.2014.
2. Debridement under general anesthesia on 08.12.2014. 9
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
3. Debridement plus SSG under General Anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
4. Orif right iliac wing under general anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
16. PW3 also stated in his evidence that though the deceased
was treated with utmost care and caution, they could not save
her life and hence, she was died on 17.12.2014 at 10.06 A.M.
He stated that the deceased incurred an amount of
Rs.5,21,650/- towards her treatment in the said hospital.
Ex.A8 is the Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.5,20,000/- . PW4
who is an Accounts Manager in the said hospital, also stated
that the deceased spent an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards
her treatment. Therefore, the evidence of PWs3 & 4 along with
Ex.A8 shows that the deceased incurred an amount of
Rs.5,20,000/- towards medical expenses and the learned
Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation of Rs.5,20,000/-
towards medicines and investigations for which interference of
this Court is not necessary. Hence, the contention of the
learned counsel the appellant that the tribunal erred in
awarding compensation towards medicines and investigations is
unsustainable.
10
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
17. The other contention made by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Tribunal failed to consider the owner and
insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties to the petition. In
this regard, it is apt to mention that the petitioners have
adduced sufficient evidence and filed ample documents in
support of their contentions and it is the case of RTC to prove
that there was no contributory negligence on part of the said
RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1039. But no evidence was
adduced and no documents were marked on their behalf to
disprove their negligence and mere non-examination of owner
and insurer of the said two wheeler will not disentitle the
appellant-RTC to pay compensation to the petitioners.
18. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, after considering the
entire evidence and documents available, has rightly held that
the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-1039 and
granted a reasonable compensation. This Court does not feel to
interfere with the said findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence,
the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs. 11
MGP,J MACMA.No.2164 of 2017
20. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.11.01.2024 ysk
