Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Talari Shantaiah Died Per Lrs 2 To 5
2025 Latest Caselaw 4522 Tel

Telangana High Court

Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Talari Shantaiah Died Per Lrs 2 To 5 on 4 April, 2025

                                  1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.32 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and

Decree dated 19.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.3121 of 2016 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on

28.08.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., while the petitioner along with a

patient was proceeding in his Ambulance bearing No.TS-15-UA-

9105 to go to Sangareddy from Nizampur Village and when they

reached in front of Reliance Petrol Pump on NH-65 road at the

outskirts of Nandikandi Village of Sadashivapet Mandal, Medak

District, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-747 came in the opposite

direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without

following the traffic rules and the driver of the said bus lost control

over the vehicle and dashed against the ambulance, due to which

the petitioner and inmates received injuries, one inmate died and

the petitioner received grievous injuries all over the body.

Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sangareddy for treatment and after first aid, ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and during the

course of treatment, his right leg was amputated. It is his further

case that he is still undergoing treatment and he suffered much

pain and suffering. He therefore, claimed a compensation of

Rs.18,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1, the driver of RTC Bus has filed his

counter denying the averments in the petition and further

contended that he is an experienced person and that even if he is

held liable, it is the respondent No.2/RTC which has to pay the

compensation and that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay such

compensation.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the

petition averments with regard to the age, income and occurrence

of the accident and the medical expenses. They further contended

that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the

petitioner himself and that there was no negligence of the bus

driver.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, Talari Shantaiah, due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-29Z-747, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.20,09,450/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree dated 19.08.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

TSRTC appearing for the appellants and Sri R. Nageswara Rao,

learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in awarding huge amount of Rs.20,09,450/-

towards compensation against the claim of Rs.18,00,000/- and

that the Tribunal has committed an irregularity in holding that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the RTC Bus. He further argued that the Tribunal failed

to consider the aspect of contributory negligence on part of the

ambulance driver and that the monthly notional income of the

petitioner was wrongly taken as Rs.10,000/- and that the

petitioner cannot claim more than Rs.7,000/- as his income. He

further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded huge ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

amount under various heads and he therefore prayed to set aside

the award by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has

argued that the petitioner has suffered amputation of his leg and is

not able to do any work and therefore, has submitted that the

Tribunal granted just compensation and thus, prayed this Court to

uphold the same.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-747 was not rash and negligent while driving the bus on 28.08.2016 at 07:00 p.m on the outskirts of Nandikandi Village of Sadashivapet Mandal causing the accident against ambulance bearing No.TS-15-UA-9105 of the petitioner?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the ambulance bearing No.TS-15-UA-9105?

3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

4. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

5. To what relief?

13. Point Nos.1 & 2:-

a) PW1 is an injured witness and he relied upon Exs.A1 and

A2. It is his evidence that while he was going along with his

relatives in his Ambulance bearing No.TS-15-UA-9105 on

28.08.2016 at about 7:00 p.m and when they reached in front of

Reliance Petrol Pump on NH-65 road at the outskirts of

Nandikandi Village of Sadashivapet Mandal, Medak District, one ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-747 came in the opposite direction in

a rash and negligent manner at a high speed dashed against the

ambulance, due to which the petitioner and inmates received

injuries, one inmate died. Nothing much could be elicited during

his cross examination to dislodge his evidence with regard to the

occurrence of the accident. A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR and

Ex.A2/Charge Sheet reveals that it is filed against the driver of the

bus stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligence of the driver of the RTC bus.

b) The contention of respondents is that the Police found arrack

packets in the ambulance and that the ambulance driver was

under the impact of alcohol and thus contributed to the accident.

The respondents got examined RW1 to prove their contention.

During his cross examination, RW1/the driver of RTC Bus has

admitted that a criminal case is pending against him. Though he

deposed during his chief examination that some arrack packets

were found in the ambulance, it is elicited that the same was not

mentioned in the charge sheet. There is no evidence to show that

the Police have found arrack packets in the ambulance. Therefore,

the respondents failed to prove the contributory negligence alleged

against the petitioner. Thus, the said contention of the respondents

is not proved. Hence, it is held that the accident occurred due to ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and that

there was no negligence of the ambulance driver i.e., the petitioner.

Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

c) It is asserted by the petitioner that he is the owner-cum-

driver, of an ambulance and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month.

To support his case, he has filed Ex.A7/Driving License. A perusal

of Ex.A7 reveals that he holds valid driving license as on the date

of accident, its validity is from 13.06.2016 to 12.07.2016. Ex.A9 is

the Employee Identity Card issued by the Medical Department

which shows that the petitioner used to run an ambulance for

Government Hospital. Therefore, his income is taken as

Rs.10,000/- per month by the Tribunal which is justified.

d) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous

injuries and that his leg is amputated at Apollo Hospital and he

underwent inpatient treatment from 29.08.2016 to 04.09.2016. He

got examined PW2/Dr.V. Kavitha and PW4/Dr. P. Somashekar

Reddy to prove his case. It is the evidence of PW4 who is an

Orthopedic Surgeon at Apollo Hospital who stated that he treated

the petitioner and that there were Grade-III C compound fracture

to the right leg and thus he underwent below knee amputation.

ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

e) A perusal of Ex.A3/Injury Certificate also discloses the said

fact of injuries sustained by the petitioner. PW3 is a Cashier in

Apollo Hospital and his evidence reveals that the petitioner

incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,54,000/- towards inpatient bill

and also that he incurred Rs.27,450/- towards X-Rays and other

diagnostic tests. The petitioner further produced a bunch of

medical bills under Exs.A4. Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary along

with X-Rays and Prescriptions. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 3

and 4 coupled under Exs.A3 to A5 reveal the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and treatment underwent by him and

the medical expenditure incurred by him.

f) Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

awarded the amounts towards medical expenditure and also

towards pain and suffering. It is the common knowledge that

without a reasonable physical fitness, one cannot attend his/her

normal work. In the light of the evidence in regard to the injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the treatment received by him and

also taking into consideration the time required for the injuries to

heal, it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work during the

treatment period. Though the petitioner underwent treatment in a

Government Hospital, some amount towards extra nourishment,

additional medical expenditure, attendant charges etc., cannot be

denied to the petitioner. Hence, considering the same, the tribunal ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

has rightly awarded Rs.2,000/- each towards pain and sufferings

for two simple injuries, Rs.25,000/- each towards pain and

sufferings for two grievous injuries, Rs.1,81,450/- towards medical

expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards nominal expenditure which the

claimant incurred for transportation, extra nourishment, attendant

charges.

g) Ex.A8 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical

Board. Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar 1, the extent of disability is 70% as the claimant had

amputation of left leg above knee. The Tribunal has assessed the

Loss of earning capacity as 70% and the same cannot be found

fault with as the claimant suffered amputation of right leg. He was

aged 40 years, so the multiplier applicable for 40 years is '15 which

also cannot be disputed as per the dicta laid down in Sarla Verma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Therefore, the Tribunal was

not wrong in adapting the multiplier as "15". Thus, it is held that

there is no error committed by the Tribunal as far as the age and

multiplier are concerned. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.17,64,000/- is

awarded towards loss of future earnings.

2011 (10 SCC 343

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

h) Therefore, the compensation i.e., Rs.20,09,450/- granted by

the Tribunal is found to be well justified and does not need any

interference.

15. Point No.3:-

In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference

and therefore, the same is upheld.

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 19.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.3121 of 2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 04.04.2025 ds ETD,J MACMA No.32_2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.32 OF 2021 Date: 04.04.2025.

ds