Apsrtc, Rep By Its Chairman, Hyderabad vs Sri Kondepudi Nagendra Kumar, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2173 Tel

Telangana High Court

Apsrtc, Rep By Its Chairman, Hyderabad vs Sri Kondepudi Nagendra Kumar, ... on 14 February, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
                       M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017
                                 AND
                    CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.18 of 2023


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.92

of 2012, dated 21.07.2015, respondent No.1/RTC in the said

M.V.O.P. filed M.A.C.M.A.376 of 2017 seeking to set-aside the

Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Also, being not satisfied

with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the

Petitioner in the said M.V.O.P. filed Cross Objections No.18 of 2023

seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they

were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the

petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 read

with Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 seeking compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained to him in a motor vehicle

accident that took place on 01.09.2010. As stated by the

petitioner, on 01.09.2010, when the petitioner was leaving from

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

office on Her Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP-29-AD-2283

towards his residence situated at Malkajgiri, Secunderabad, on the

way, when he reached near Cine Actor Balakrishna's residence at

Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, one A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-

5436 of HCU Depot came in a rash and negligent manner at high

speed and hit the vehicle of the petitioner from backside, due to

which, the petitioner fell down on the road divider and sustained

Head injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body.

Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital at Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.

4. Based on the complaint given by the brother-in-law of the

petitioner, the Jubilee Hills Police Station registered a case in

Crime No.381 of 2010 under Section 337 IPC, conducted

investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the RTC

Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-5436.

5. It is further submitted by the petitioner/injured that he was

30 years old and is an Engineering Graduate and working as a

Team Leader in ITC Structures 18 Infra Pvt.Ltd. on consolidated

salary of Rs.14,000/- per month and prosecuting further education

in Masters Degree. Due to the said accident, he became

permanently disabled and unable to discharge his regular duties

as he underwent operations to Brain. Since the alleged accident

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-5436, as such, he filed claim

petition against the respondents, who are the owner and driver of

the said RTC Bus.

6. The respondents 1 & 2/RTC filed their written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

RTC Bus Bearing No. AP-28-Z-5436, involvement of RTC Bus, age,

occupation and income of the petitioner/injured and contended

that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the petitioner/injured himself and therefore prayed to

dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting

trial:-

i. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner Kondepudi Nagendra Kumar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing registration No. AP-28-Z-5436) by its driver? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? iii. To what relief?

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself was examined as

PW1, got examined PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16 on

his behalf. On behalf of the respondents/RTC, no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate their

contentions.

9. After considering the evidence and documents available on

record, the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by

awarding compensation of Rs.37,12,000/- along with interest @

7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

payable by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same,

respondent No.1/APSRTC in the said M.V.O.P. filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017 and the claim petitioner filed Cross

Objections petition No.18 of 2023.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.Manish, learned

counsel representing on behalf of Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing

Counsel for Appellants-RTC as well as Sri E.Venugopal Reddy,

learned counsel for cross-objector/Respondent No.1 in O.P.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/RTC

are that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the disability of

the petitioner/injured @ 100% based on Discharge Summary

without any Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board and

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

calculated the compensation; it also erred in fixing the income of

the petitioner @ Rs.13,500/- per month and also failed to consider

the fact that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle as

parties to the claim petition.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/cross-

objector contended that as the petitioner/injured never became

normal person due to the said injuries, it ought to have awarded

future prospects to the income of the petitioner and further

contended that it ought to have awarded more amounts under

conventional heads and therefore prayed to allow the cross-

objections petition by enhancing the compensation.

13. Now the points that emerge for consideration is,

(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires

interference of this Court?

(i) Whether the cross-objector is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

Points-

14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

available on record. The father of the petitioner was examined as

PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim application and

deposed about the injuries sustained to his son. In order to prove

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

about the injuries sustained to his son, he got examined PW4-

Doctor/Neuro Surgeon who treated him. PW4 in his evidence

deposed that the petitioner/injured was admitted in Apollo

Hospital on 01.09.2010 with the injuries of (i) Closed Head Injury,

(ii) Left Hemisphesic Thin Subdural Hematoma, (iii) Traumatic Sah,

(iv) Left Frontal and Temporal Contusion and (v) Diffuse Axonal

Injury and underwent surgery for Left Fronto Temporal

Decompressive Hemicraniectomy on 08.09.2010 and was

discharged on 22.09.2010 with an advice to come again for

Cranioplasty. On 22.09.2010, Titanium Mesh Plate was inserted

for the injury sustained by the petitioner/injured. PW4 further

deposed that due to the said injury, his left side of the brain got

affected and as a result, there is a loss of memory and de-function

of right side of the body and speech.

15. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1 is the

FIR registered by Jubilee Hills Police Station in Crime No.381 of

2010 under Section 337 IPC, conducted investigation and filed

charge sheet under Ex.A11 against the driver of the RTC Bus

bearing No.AP-28Z-5436. Ex.A2 are the medical bills. Ex.A3 is the

Discharge summary. Ex.A4 is the appointment order of the

petitioner/injured. Ex.A5 is the Salary slip of the

petitioner/injured. Ex.A6 is the Eye institute certificate. Ex.A7 is

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

the Driving License. Ex.A8 is the ID card of M.Tech course. Ex.A9

is the ID card of K.Nageswara Rao. Ex.A10 is the Registration

Certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-29-AD-2283. Ex.A12 is the

Copy of judgment in CC.No.1766 of 2010. Ex.A13 is the SSC

certificate of the petitioner/injured. Ex.A14 is the B.Tech

provisional certificate. Exs.A15 & A16 are the Medical Bills.

16. Therefore, from the oral evidence of PWs1 to 5 coupled with

the documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A16, it is clear

that the petitioner/injured sustained grievous injuries in the

accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-5436. Moreover, the driver

of said RTC bus voluntarily admitted that he had committed the

offence and surrendered himself before the Police. Therefore, there

is no requirement in making the owner and insurer of the

motorcycle as necessary parties to the claim petition. Hence, the

finding arrived by the Tribunal that there was negligence on part of

the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-5436 do not suffer from

any irregularity.

17. As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned

judgment is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/RTC

contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the

petitioner/injured @ Rs.13,500/- per month without considering

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

Ex.A5-Salary slip and had also not considered the percentage of

disability @ 100%.

18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW4

who deposed that due to the Head injury sustained to the

petitioner, his left side of the brain got affected and there is loss of

memory and further deposed that the petitioner requires

rehabilitation for his entire life and requires continuous assistance

for performing his daily needs and he also deposed that the

injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and

there is no chance of improvement of his condition in future.

Hence, the learned Tribunal considering the loss of economic

deprivation on account of loss of memory caused to the petitioner,

assessed his disability @ 100%. This Court, by considering the

grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, surgeries undergone

by him, treatment taken by him and by considering the evidence of

PW4 who deposed that there is complete loss of memory to the

injured and the said condition will be continued throughout his

life, is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had

rightly held that the petitioner suffers 100% economic deprivation

on account of the said injuries. Hence, the finding arrived by the

Tribunal requires no interference by this Court.

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

19. As far as income of the petitioner/injured is concerned, the

learned Tribunal fixed an amount of Rs.15,500/- per month

notionally towards the income of the petitioner which includes

attendance expenses. This Court, by considering Ex.A5- Cheque

payment made by M/s.Structures 18 Infratech Pvt.Ltd towards

salary for the month of August, 2010 and Ex.A4-Appointment

letter issued by Structures 18 Infra Tech Private Limited, is

inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and hereby fix

an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards monthly income of the

petitioner/injured and calculate future loss of earnings as under:-

Future loss of earnings = Monthly income x 12 x percentage of

disability x relevant multiplier.

= 14,000 x 12 x 17 x100%

=Rs.28,56,000/-

20. Apart from future loss of earnings, the learned Tribunal also

awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering;

Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and expectation of life

which this Court finds it to be excess and hereby reduce the same

to Rs.1,00,000/- .

21. Further, a perusal of Para 18 of the impugned judgment

shows that though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,63,295/-

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

towards Hospital expenses incurred by the petitioner/injured, but

it failed to add the said amount while calculating compensation.

Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the

learned Tribunal and hereby award an amount of Rs.4,63,295/-

towards Hospital expenses incurred by the petitioner/injured .

22. Hence, the total compensation to which the

petitioner/injured is entitled to, is calculated hereunder:-

Amount S.No. Name of the Head awarded by this Court

1. Loss of earnings due Rs.28,56,000/-

to disability

Medical expenses Rs.4,63,295/-

2. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-

3. and loss of amenities in life Rs.10,000/-

4. Attendant charges

5. TOTAL Rs.34,29,295/-

23. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded

interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount which this

Court finds the same to be meager and hereby enhances the same

to 7.5% by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1

1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP,J MACMA.376 of 2017 and X-obj.18 of 2023

24. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.376 of 2017 filed by RTC is party-

allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.37,12,000/- to Rs.34,29,295/- and the Cross-Objection

petition No.18 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/injured is also partly-

allowed by enhancing the rate of interest on the compensation

amount from 7% to 7.5% per annum. Except the said findings, the

findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to liability and

apportionment shall remain same. There shall be no order as to

costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

Dt.14.02.2025 ysk