The Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs Chintapally Ramulu
2024 Latest Caselaw 1013 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs Chintapally Ramulu on 11 March, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of 2018 and
                    Cross-Objections No.13 of 2019


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and

Cross-Objections are directed against order and decree dated

16.09.2016 in O.P.No.536 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge

at Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The said claim

petition was filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation

for injuries sustained by him in an accident and the same was

partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.9,79,000/-. Aggrieved

by the said order, respondent before the Tribunal has filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of 2018 seeking to set aside the impugned

order and dismiss the claim petition and the petitioner before the

Tribunal filed Cross-Objection No.13 of 2019 seeking

enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Since

both the appeal and cross-objections are arising out of same order

and decree, they are being dealt with by way of this common

judgment.

2. The petitioner before the Tribunal is respondent in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of 2018 and cross-objector in Cross-

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

Objections No.13 of 2019. The respondent before the Tribunal is

appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of 2018 and respondent in Cross-

Objections No.13 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the

parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the

Commissioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.01.2014 at about

18:00 hours, with an intention to go to his office at Jubliee Hills

Peddamma Temple, he boarded RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7103

at Mehdipatnam Bus stop, the driver of the said bus suddenly

started the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed

without observing the petitioner, who was near the bus door.

Therefore, the petitioner fell down on the ground in the bus stop

and his left leg got crushed and amputated. Immediately, the

petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for

treatment, where he was admitted as inpatient. Subsequently, he

was under regular private treatment and follow up treatment in

private hospitals. He spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical

expenses and room rent. With regard to accident, a case was

registered on the driver of RTC bus in Asifnagar Police Station in

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

Crime No.15 of 2014 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that he was hale and

healthy before the accident and working as mason and earning an

amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, which he used to contribute to

his family members. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained

injuries all over the body and became totally disabled. He was

completely bed ridden during the course of treatment. Hence, he

filed the present claim petition against respondent seeking

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads.

5. The respondent-RTC filed its counter denying the occurrence

of the accident, income, avocation, age and health condition of the

petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner did not sustain

injuries in the said accident. Further, as the compensation

claimed is excess and exorbitant prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

6. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as

P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

A-1 to A-5 and Ex.C-1 was got marked. On behalf of respondent

no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues

were framed by the Tribunal:

"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7103?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

8. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the

Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully proved his case.

Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that

respondent is liable to pay compensation and granted an amount

of Rs.9,79,000/- towards compensation payable to the petitioner.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of

2018 i.e., RTC contended that there was no negligence on the part

of the RTC bus driver and the negligence was only on the part of

the petitioner and without considering the same, the Tribunal has

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

awarded compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal

erred in considering the age of the petitioner and also income of

the petitioner and awarded compensation on higher side. Hence,

prayed to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the

present appeal.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner/cross-

objector contended that the petitioner was working as mason and

was being paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, however,

the Tribunal without considering the same, has taken the income

of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on lower side.

Hence, prayed to allow the cross-objections and enhance the

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

12. Now the point for determination is as follows:

"1. Whether the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the petitioners as contended by respondent/RTC?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"

Point Nos.1 and 2:

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material

placed on record. The petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

and reiterated the contents of his claim petition such as manner

of the accident and injuries sustained by him. He also got marked

Exs.A-1 to A-5. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him,

he got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is the Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Gandhi Hospital, and he deposed that the petitioner was

aged about 40 years and he was admitted in their hospital with a

history of road traffic accident on 08.01.2014 with injuries of

Grade III B compound comminuted fracture supra candler left

femur and Grade III B compound comminuted fracture B.B.(L) 4/3

leg. He further deposed that the petitioner was treated with IVF

blood transmission and antibiotic and first surgery of the

amputation of the left leg and external fixation, C.C. screws was

performed on 31.01.2014 and latest SSG plastic surgery was

performed. Ultimately, the petitioner was discharged on

19.02.2014 with an advice of follow up treatment and medical

checkup. In the evidence of P.W.2, two case sheets pertaining to

P.W.1 were got marked as Ex.C-1.

14. The Member of District Medical Board and Civil Surgeon,

Specialist in Ortho at District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda,

was examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that the petitioner

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

appeared before the District Medical Board, Nalgonda, on

08.01.2015 and they have examined him and found that he was

suffering with 85% permanent disability due to amputation of left

lower limb at the level of upper 1/3rd of left thigh and disability

certificate under Ex.A-4 was issued. He further deposed that the

petitioner cannot sit, stand and walk without the help of walker

and cannot work as earlier. Though, P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-

examined, nothing worth was elicited.

15. A perusal of Ex.A-1 copy of First Information Report

discloses that on receipt of complaint from the petitioner a case

was registered in Crime No.15 of 2014 under Section 337 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of RTC bus and

investigation was taken up by Asifnagar Police. After thorough

investigation, charge sheet was filed under Ex.A-3 against the

driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7103. Ex.A-2 is certified

copy of medical certificate issued by the Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. Ex.A-3 is original disability certificate and Ex.A-5

is discharge summary. All these documents clearly disclose the

occurrence of the accident, involvement of driver of RTC bus,

injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment underwent by him

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

and also the disability sustained by the petitioner due to the said

injuries.

16. It is pertinent to state that documents under Ex.A-1- copy of

First Information Report and Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet clearly

disclose that police filed charge sheet only against the driver of the

RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7103, which shows that there is no

negligence on the part of the petitioner. Furthermore, the

respondent-RTC has not adduced either oral or documentary

evidence to show that there was negligence on the part of the

petitioner. In the said circumstances, based on the evidence

available on record, the Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence

to the driver of RTC bus alone. Hence, the contention of the

learned counsel for the respondent-RTC that there was no

negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver and the negligence

was only on the part of the petitioner, is unsustainable.

17. Coming to the age of the petitioner, a perusal of First

Information Report under Ex.A-1, charge sheet under Ex.A-3 and

also discharge summary under Ex.A-5 clearly discloses the age of

the petitioner as 40 years at the time of the accident. Apart from

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

the said evidence, there is no evidence placed on record by either

side to show the age of the petitioner. In the said circumstances,

the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the petitioner as 40

years and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

18. Coming to the income of the petitioner, it is the case of the

petitioner that he was working as mason and earning an amount

of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, except mere contention no

evidence of any kind was produced by the petitioner before the

Tribunal to prove the same. In the said circumstances, the

Tribunal as there was no evidence on record has considered the

monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- based on the

occupation and year of the accident. Therefore, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- is

just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

19. Furthermore, the Tribunal after considering all the aspects

such as age, wages, occupation, injuries sustained and disability

suffered by the petitioner has awarded reasonable compensation

under various heads and interference of this Court is not

MGP,J MACMA_1685_2018 & X-OBJ_13_2019

necessary. The appeal and the cross-objections are devoid of

merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1685 of 2018 and Cross-

Objections No.13 of 2019 are dismissed confirming the order and

decree dated 16.09.2016 in O.P.No.536 of 2014 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge at Nalgonda. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

Date: 11.03.2024 GVR