The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Upendra Kumar Misra And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5245 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Upendra Kumar Misra And Another on 30 April, 2025

                                   1




        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.124 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

Decree dated 13.11.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.76 of 2018 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 was that on

19.06.2017 at about 09:45 hours, while the petitioner was

standing to board the bus, the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-

29Z-2548 near Golden Cafe, Tadbund X Road, Secunderabad,

drove the same in rash and negligent manner at a high speed and

dashed the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and

sustained grievous fracture injuries all over the body. Immediately,

he was shifted to KIMS Hospital and thereafter to M/s Srikara

Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. He incurred huge

medical expenditure and he sought a compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte.

ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

5. The respondent No.2-TSRTC filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and

income of the petitioner and also with regard to the occurrence of

the accident.

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

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injured of the petitioner due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548 make Ashok Lyeland, Model:2011 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and X1. On behalf of the

respondents, no evidence was adduced.

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

compensation of Rs.11,11,000/- Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

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

order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the facts and

contrary to law. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted

Rs.11,11,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- without any

proper reasoning. He further argued that the Tribunal has

committed an error in holding that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligence of the driver of the RTC bus without any

evidence on record. He further argued that the contributory

negligence on part of the injured must have been taken into

consideration by the Tribunal as the injured tried to board running

bus at the time of the accident. He further argued that the

Tribunal has granted exorbitant amounts under various heads and

therefore, prayed to allow his appeal.

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

points for determination:-

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the petitioner in the occurrence of the accident?

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?

ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

12. Point Nos.1 & 2:

a) The contention of the appellant is that the petitioner was

negligent and that he tried to board a running bus and fell down

and thus, sustained grievous injuries and thus, there is no

negligence of the RTC driver.

b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2

reveals that the petitioner was waiting at the Golden Point Bus

stop and when he saw the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2548

coming from Medchal to Secunderabad, he waived his hand to stop

the bus and thus the bus driver has slowed down the bus, after

that, he boarded the bus from the front door and he put his left

leg on the steps and right leg was still outside, the petitioner

informed the same to the driver and asked him to stop the bus, but

the bus driver did not stop the bus and moved the bus in a rash

and negligent manner, as a result of which he fell down and his

right leg got crushed under the front wheel. PW1 is the injured

witness. His evidence reveals that on request of the petitioner, the

driver has stopped the bus and without observing that the

petitioner has not completely got into the bus, the driver has

moved the bus, which resulted in the accident and caused

grievous injuries to the petitioner. Therefore, based on the evidence ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and A2, it is held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC driver

and that there is no contributory negligence on part of the

petitioner.

Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13. Point No.3:-

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

injuries in the accident, which occurred due to the negligence of

the RTC driver. To prove his injuries he got examined PW2 to 4.

PW2/Dr.P. Ramesh is a consultant Plastic Surgeon in M/s Srikara

Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained crush

injury of right foot with evulsions of skin over dorsum of right foot

and sole of right foot, all toes including great toe of right foot were

hanging and barely attached proximally (traumatic amputation)

and that he treated the petitioner for the said injuries and also

amputated all the toes of right foot. His evidence further reveals

that the petitioner has disfigurement of right foot and that he

cannot walk perfectly and cannot run as he lost all the right toes

and that petitioner has 45% of permanent physical disability.

Ex.A4 is issued by their hospital.

ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

d) The evidence of PW4/Dr. Subash Rao, who is an Orthopaedic

Surgeon at Sri Sai Clinic reveals that he has examined the

petitioner and issued Ex.A8/Disability Certificate. His evidence

reveals that the petitioner sustained amputation of all the toes on

his right foot and suffered with 45% of permanent disability.

e) PW3/Mr. P. Vijay Kumar is the Billing Manager of Srikara

Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner has paid

Rs.70,000/- towards inpatient bill and further received Rs.500/-

towards consultation fee and Rs.6,300/- under Bill No.9371 in

addition to the inpatient bill of Rs.70,000/-. Ex.A5 is the medical

bill issued by their hospital. He further filed Ex.X1 which is the

original of the final bill issued by their hospital for Rs.70,000/-.

Thus, the treatment underwent by their petitioner at Srikara

Hospital is proved with the evidence of PW2 and the bills paid by

him are proved by the evidence of PW3.

f) PW4 is not a member of District Medical Board, but he has

issued the disability certificate on the physical examination of the

petitioner and the disability mentioned in Ex.A8 is 45%. Ex.A4 is a

set of discharge summaries issued by Srikara Hospital and NIMS.

The first discharge summary issued by Srikara Hospital discloses

that the petitioner was admitted on 19.06.2017 and was

discharged on 23.06.2017 and during the said period, he was ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

treated for his injuries sustained in road traffic accident and that

he underwent right foot debridement and disarticulation of toes

under spinal anesthesia. He was again admitted on 26.06.2017

and discharged on 04.07.2017, the second discharge summary

reveals that he was again admitted on 29.09.2017, discharged on

31.09.2017.

g) The evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 coupled with the discharge

summaries under Ex.A4, reveal the treatment underwent by the

petitioner and Ex.A8 is the disability certificate which discloses

that the petitioner sustained 45% of disability which is partial and

permanent in nature, as a result of traumatic amputation of all the

toes of the right foot. In view of the gravity of injuries sustained by

the petitioner which involves lot of pain and suffering, the Tribunal

has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is opined to be

reasonable.

h) The Tribunal has awarded amounts under different heads

i.e., Rs.50,000/- towards discomfort and Rs.50,000/- towards pain

and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Generally

the pain and suffering includes all these elements. It is opined that

Rs.1,00,000/- if awarded towards pain and suffering would be just

and reasonable in this case.

ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

i) The medical bills are filed to an extent of Rs.1,62,000/- and

hence, the same is awarded.

j) Considering the entire evidence on record and in addition to

the medical expenses, the petitioner might have incurred some

additional amount of Rs.50,000/- of expenditure towards extra

nourishment, transportation and other incidental expenses, and all

the elements put together the amount awarded towards medical

expenses and treatment is arrived at Rs.2,12,000/- (1,62,000 +

50,000).

k) The salary certificate is filed under Ex.A6 which shows that

the deceased used to work in their establishment and earn a salary

of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the employer is not examined.

Thus, Ex.A6 is not proved. In the injury certificate he is stated to

be aged '52' years, as per Ex.A8/Disability Certificate his age is

mentioned as '58' years. No other documents is filed in proof of his

age. Hence, the same is taken into consideration. The accident

occurred in 2017. Thus, he might have been aged between 50-55

years at the time of the accident. He is an able bodied person prior

to the accident, he must have been into some avocation and he

must have been earning to maintain his family. Thus on a

reasonable hypothesis, his income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.8,000/- per month is opined to be just and reasonable. Whether ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

the amputation of toes would hamper his duties as a worker in

Dadus Mitai Vaatika is not established. But it must have resulted

in discomfort and reduced ability of the petitioner, which cannot be

ruled out.

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

Kumar 1, 45% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A8 is scaled down

to 25% with regard to whole body and the loss of earnings is scaled

down to 20%. After adding future prospects of 10% monthly

income would be Rs.8,800/- and the loss of future earnings is

arrived at Rs.8,800 x12 = 1,05,600 x 20% x 13 which comes up to

2,74,560/-.

m) Because he suffered amputation of toes, he must have been

out of work for atleast around twelve months. Accordingly, a sum

of 96,000/- (8000 x 12) is awarded as compensation towards loss

of earnings.

n) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

SI. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court No. Rs.

1. Compensation under the head 1,00,000/-

'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2. Compensation of loss of earnings 96,000/-

(past three months)

3. Loss of future earnings due to 2,74,560/-

2011 (10 SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

disability

4. Compensation under the head of 2,12,000/-

hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses Total 6,82,560/-

o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.6,82,560/- while the Tribunal has

granted Rs.11,11,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.4:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point No.3, the order and

decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the

compensation from Rs.11,11,000 to 6,82,560/-.

Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.5:-

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the

compensation from Rs.11,11,000 to 6,82,560/- with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The

Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the decreetal

amount awarded by the Tribunal which is already withdrawn by

the respondents herein. Therefore, the balance amount if any, is to ETD,J MACMA No.124_2021

be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No

costs.

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

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date:30.04.2025 ds