Telangana High Court
Kunreddy Anantha Reddy, vs A.P.S.R.T.C. on 19 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1605 of 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
24.03.2016 passed in Original Petition No.235 of 2013
(impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for
trial of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District
Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'),
appellant-claimant preferred the present Appeal praying
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that: Claimant filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
and Rules 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor
Vehicle Accident that occurred on 24.01.2013.
04. According to claimant, on 24.01.2013 at about
03:30 PM., claimant along with his villager Giri Kondal
were proceeding towards Thanedarpally Village from
Gurrampode Village on the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 P
8689 and when they reached near agricultural land of
Yadama Ram Reddy, the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.
AP 28 Z 4402 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') drove
the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed
and dashed their motorcycle resulting which claimant and
Giri Kondal fell down and received grievous injuries and
other parts of the body and immediately he was shifted to
District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment.
The Police, Gurrampode registered a case in Crime No.11 of
2013 for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') against driver of crime vehicle.
05. As per claimant, he was hale and healthy prior
to accident and due to injuries caused in the said accident,
he suffered mentally and physically. As the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of driver of
crime vehicle, claimant is entitled for compensation from
respondent.
06. Respondent-corporation filed counter denying
the averments of the claim application, occurrence of
accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of
the crime vehicle and that the compensation claimed is out
of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and sought for
dismissal of claim petition.
07. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether claimant sustained
injuries due to rash and negligence on the
part of driver of crime vehicle?
ii. Whether claimant is entitled for
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom?
iii. To what relief?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, claimant got
examined himself as PW1 and further got examined PW2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent, no
oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
09. Considering the claim of claimant and counter
affidavit filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Original Petition, awarding
compensation of Rs.39,580/- along with interest at the rate
of 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
10. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellant-claimant has filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
11. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel
for appellant-claimant and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent-corporation. Perused the
material available on record.
12. The contention of learned counsel for appellant-
claimant is that though appellant proved his case by
adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the
documents under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned Tribunal
without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager
amount towards compensation and sought for
enhancement of compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel
for respondent-corporation contended that the learned
Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the
same needs no interference by this Court.
14. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellant-claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation amount in addition to
the compensation amount granted vide impugned
Order and Decree?
P O I N T:
15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
16. Claimant was examined as PW1 and reiterated
the contents of claim application. Apart from oral
evidence, claimant also relied upon documentary evidence
marked under Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the
Police, Gurrampode registered a case in Crime No.11 of
2013 for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC against
driver of crime vehicle and took up investigation. After
completion of investigation, Ex.A4-Charge sheet was filed
against the driver of the crime vehicle stating that the
accident took place due to negligence on the part of driver
of the crime vehicle. Ex.A2-Medical Certificate, Ex.A3-
Discharge card, Ex.A5-Bunch of Medical bills, Ex.A6-X-ray
film. PW2-Doctor who treated claimant deposed that PW1
sustained one grievous injury and that he incurred an
amount of Rs.24,580/- towards medical bills, transport
charges and nourishment. Nothing was elicited during the
course of cross-examination of these witnesses, to discard
their evidence.
17. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW1
coupled with the documentary evidence available on
record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence
on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of
the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence
in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the
present appeal is with regard to the quantum of
compensation.
18. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded
Rs.24,580/- towards medical and other expenses.
Further, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted
towards one grievous injury, which are found to be
sufficient and held good. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the above quantum of
compensation. Now coming to the pain and
suffering, it is not in dispute that claimant
sustained one grievous injury and the same was
proved through the oral and documentary evidence
i.e. PW2-Doctor and Ex.A2-Medical certificate. But
as seen from the impugned Order, the learned
Tribunal failed to award compensation under the
head pain and suffering. Therefore, claimant is
entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain
and suffering. Further, no compensation amount was
awarded towards attendant charges and extra nourishment
by the learned Tribunal. Hence, claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and
Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all,
claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.59,580/-.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.39,580/- has to be
enhanced to Rs.59,580/-. In so far as interest is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. This
Court by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1
inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the
learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum on entire
compensation amount from the date of petition till the date
of realization. The entire compensation amount along with
interest shall be deposited by respondent-RTC within a
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to
withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
20. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
from Rs.39,580/- to Rs.59,580/-. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this matter, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 19-NOV-2024
KHRM
