Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Mothukuri Laxmi on 11 February, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1085 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.11.2012
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II
Additional District Judge, Khammam (hereinafter will be
referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.T.O.P.No.884 of 2011, the Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present
Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained
by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.06.2011.
The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained
by her in the accident is that on 03.06.2011 at 6.00 PM she got
down the bus at Thirumala and at the same time, the driver of
MGP,J
APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 0117 of
Srikalahasthi Depot (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime
vehicle') drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell
down and sustained severe crush injuries to her legs.
b) A case in Crime No.24 of 2011 of Thirumala Police Station
was registered against the driver of the bus. The petitioner, who
is aged about 40 years, was earning Rs.150/- per day by doing
coolie work. Due to the accident, the petitioner became
permanently disabled and not in a position to attend her normal
duties. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner
claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who are Manager, Srikalahasthi Depot and
Managing Director of APSRTC respectively.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent No.2 filed counter and whereas
respondent No.1 remained exparte. In the counter, the
respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident, age,
occupation and earnings of the deceased. It was contended that
the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the
MGP,J
petitioner at the time of the accident and there was no
negligence on the part of driver of the APSRTC Bus. It was
further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly
excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor
accident occurred on 03.06.2011 due to rash and
negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP
29 Z 0117?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If
so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
iii) To what relief?
6. In order to establish her claim before the learned
Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were
exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the
driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1, however, no
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the APSRTC to
deny the claim of the petitioner.
7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order
awarding Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.
MGP,J
Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation filed
the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation, Dr. Challa
Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant
and perused the material available on record including the
grounds of Appeal.
9. It is to be seen that the injured/claimant has not
preferred any Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that there is no negligence on the part of
driver of the crime vehicle and in fact when the bus was
stopping at passengers stand, the petitioner has crossed the
bus before it is halted and thereby the accident occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the petitioner. It was further
contended that the learned Tribunal relied on Exs.A1 to A4 to
establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
act of the driver of the bus but the same is not conclusive proof
to hold that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent.
MGP,J
11. The learned Tribunal relied upon oral evidence of PW1
apart from the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1
(FIR), A2 (Charge sheet), A3 (medical certificate) and A4 (MVI
report). Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime No.24 of 2011 of Police
Station Tirumala Traffic and the complaint was lodged by one K.
Srinivas. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet, which discloses that the
driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0117 drove the same
in rash and negligent manner without due care and
precautionary measures collided against the pedestrian
(petitioner herein) while she was coming to a side. Apart from
the above documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal relied
upon the oral evidence of PW1, who was cross examined by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2. But nothing could be
elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to establish that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner. In order
to disprove the contention of the petitioner, the respondents got
examined the driver of the crime vehicle as RW1, who has
reiterated the averments of the counter in his chief examination.
In the cross examination, he admitted that police filed charge
sheet against him stating that he was responsible for the
accident. In the chief examination, RW1 deposed that while was
entering into the bus stand at Tirumala and when he was
MGP,J
stopping the bus at passengers stand, the injured tried to cross
the bus before it is halted. It is not the case of RW1 that he has
not seen the petitioner while she was crossing the bus. When
RW1 has seen the petitioner crossing the bus, he ought to have
applied breaks to avoid the bus. It is pertinent to note that the
bus was about to the stop at the passengers stand and by that
time the bus will be very slow to control, more particularly,
when the driver of the bus witnesses a passenger crossing the
bus. Despite seeing the passenger crossing the bus at the
passenger stand, the driver could not control the bus or could
not stop the bus to avoid the accident. Thus, it clearly
manifests the negligence on part of the driver in avoiding the
accident. Hence, it is amply clear that the learned Tribunal
after considering all these aspects has answered issued No.1
holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus.
12. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the APSRTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in considering
the earnings of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per month without
there being any conclusive proof and that the learned Tribunal
ought to have taken the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as
prescribed under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act.
MGP,J
13. The petitioner claimed to be earning Rs.150/- per day by
doing coolie work, however, the learned Tribunal did not
consider the same on the ground that except the bare statement
of PW1, there is no other evidence with regard to earnings of the
petitioner. There is no dispute that the occupation of the
petitioner is 'coolie'. In the absence of any concrete evidence
and also considering the cost of living during the relevant point
of time, the learned Tribunal has fixed notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per month, which is appearing to be
just and reasonable. On the other hand, the respondents have
also not placed any material to establish that the monthly
income of the petitioner arrived by the petitioner is excessive. It
is pertinent to note that the notional income as prescribed
under schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act is taken into
consideration in case of non earning members. It is not the
case of the respondents that the petitioner is a non earning
member. In these circumstances, the above contentions of the
respondents with regard to the income of the petitioner arrived
by the learned Tribunal, are untenable.
14. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the APSRTC that learned Tribunal erred in awarding
MGP,J
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, which excessive and out of all
proportions.
15. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner suffered
amputation of left leg above knee with 70% of the disability and
she might have suffered physical as well as mental agony. The
petitioner might have incurred considerable amount towards
her treatment at various hospitals, medical expenses,
transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges etc. A
perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned
Tribunal by considering all the above aspects has awarded
Rs.4,00,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Except
contending that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is excessive, the respondents have not adduced any
evidence on their behalf to establish that the learned Tribunal
has awarded more compensation than the compensation
entitled by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal so far as the
quantum of compensation is concerned.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the firm opinion that the appellants/respondents failed to
establish any of the grounds to set aside the well reasoned order
MGP,J
passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present Appeal is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 11.02.2025
AS
