Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs B Shankar, Karimnagar Dist And 1 Other
2025 Latest Caselaw 2176 Tel

Telangana High Court

Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs B Shankar, Karimnagar Dist And 1 Other on 14 February, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 OF 2016
                             AND
                  M.A.C.M.A.No.355 OF 2017


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of 2016, filed by the claim

petitioner/injured seeking enhancement of compensation and

M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2017 filed by A.P.S.R.T.C challenging the

quantum of compensation, both are directed against the very same

order dated 21.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2014, on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

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

petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-

on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident that took place on 02.12.2013 at about 19.30 hours at

Elkathurthi Village. As stated by the petitioner, on 02.12.2013, in

the evening hours, after completion of agricultural work, when the

petitioner was proceeding to Macherla Bikshapathi Mirchi Bajji

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

stall to bring bajjis and when reached Bikshapathi Mirchi stall, one

RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249 came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the petitioner from his backside. As a result,

the petitioner fell down and sustained bleeding injuries over his

head, mouth and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was

shifted to M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal and after First Aid, he was

shifted to Max Care Hospital, Hyderabad and he underwent

different types of medical tests and was treated as inpatient from

02.12.2013 to 20.12.2013 and underwent surgery for Head injury

and was discharged with an advice of follow-up treatment. It is

stated by the petitioner that at the time of discharge, the petitioner

was suffering with mental disorderness and giddiness and unable

to attend to his duties and became dependant on his family

members.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Elkathurthi Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2013 under Section 338 IPC,

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of

crime RTC vehicle.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he used to

work as a Supervisor in a Fertilizer shop and used to earn

Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he incurred an

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and odd for his treatment and

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

transportation and therefore filed petition seeking compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents/RTC.

6. Respondent No.1/Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249

filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition

and contended that the petitioner himself had negligently fallen on

the road and sustained injuries and there is no negligence on part

of him and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Respondent No.2/Divisional Manager of RTC filed his

counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended

that respondent No.1 was very cautious and diligent while driving

the crime RTC bus and further contended that the petitioner

himself had contributed for the alleged accident and there is no

negligence on part of the driver of RTC Bus and therefore prayed to

dismiss the claim against them.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249 driven by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

     (iii)    To what relief?

                                                                              MGP,J
                                                           MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 5

were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of

Respondents/RTC, RW1 was examined, but no documents were

marked.

10. After considering the evidence and documents available on

record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition

by awarding compensation of Rs.12,31,181/- along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization payable by both the

respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same,

the present appeals came to be filed by the injured and RTC

respectively.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Ram Chander Rao

Vemuganti, learned counsel for appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of

2016 and Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for

T.S.R.T.C representing respondents/appellant in

M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2017. Perused the record.

12. The contentions of the learned counsel for the

appellant/injured in M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of 2016 are that the

learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the

injured @ Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-; ought to have

awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; ought to have

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

awarded attendant charges to the injured petitioner throughout his

life and also ought to have awarded future prospects to the income

of the deceased and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by

enhancing the compensation amount.

13. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel

for Respondent No.2/Appellant-RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2017

are that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on

part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249 as the

petitioner himself who is in intoxicated condition, tried to cross the

road and dashed the RTC bus. It also contended that the Tribunal

erred in assessing the age and income of the injured without any

proper evidence and further contended that the multiplier applied

is without any documentary evidence and hence prayed to allow

the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?

(ii)Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement

of compensation amount?

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

POINT:-

15. A perusal of the record reveals that the father of the

petitioner/injured was examined as PW1 and reiterated the

contents made in the claim petition and deposed about the

occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by his son. In

support of his evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 to A17. As he is not

an eye-witness to the accident, he got examined PW4- eye witness

and also to prove injuries, he got examined PW2- Doctor.

16. PW4, an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on part of the

driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249 and that there is no

negligence on part of injured.

17. PW2-Neurosurgeon of Max Care Hospital, Hanamkonda,

deposed in his evidence that the petitioner/injured was admitted in

their Hospital on 02.12.2013 with history of RTA and the patient

was unconscious as he sustained severe bleeding injury to his

Head. The petitioner was incubated and kept on Ventilator and

C.T. scan of the Brain was taken and there occurred big clot on the

right side of brain of the petitioner and bone fracture for which

immediate surgical evacuation of his brain clot was done and due

to poor GCS, he is in need of ventilator post operatively for more

than a week. He further stated that the petitioner underwent

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

Tracheostomy and also had multiple rib fractures on the left side of

the chest and surgery was done for the same. He further stated

that Exs.A2, A5 to A17 were issued by their Hospital and that there

is a chance to get fits in future to the injured and he cannot

perform all his routine works. He also stated that the injured will

not be able to do any physical work due to the said Head injury

and loss of memory and the injured is required to be under follow

up treatment.

18. In order to prove about the earnings of the petitioners, PW3,

Owner of Ramakrishna Fertilizer shop was examined. PW3 in his

evidence deposed that the injured used to work as Supervisor in

their Fertilizer shop and he used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to

him towards his salary.

19. The petitioner/injured also examined PW5- Civil Surgeon

and one of the Members of Medical Board who issued Disability

Certificate under Ex.A9. PW5 in his evidence deposed that the

petitioner sustained 71% permanent disability due to mental

illness and he issued Disability Certificate under Ex.A9 as a

Member of Medical Board.

20. Though PWs 1 to 5 were put to cross-examination, except

denying the suggestions put to them, nothing worthwhile was

elicited from them to disbelieve their testimony.

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

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

FIR registered by Police of Elkathurthi Police Station in Crime

No.153 of 2013, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet

under Ex.A3 against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249.

Ex.A2 is the Medical Certificate issued by Max Care Hospital,

Hanamkonda. Ex.A4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report which

discloses that the accident had not occurred due to any

mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A5 is the Discharge

summary of Max Care Hospital. Ex.A6 is the inpatient final bill

issued by Max Care Hospital. Ex.A7are the bills issued by Max

Care Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A8 are the Pharmacy bills of Max

Care Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A9 is the Disability Certificate

issued by Medical Board, Karimnagar, Ex.A10 is the Salary

Certificate of the petitioner. Ex.A11 are the bunch of medical bills

(74 in number). Ex.A12 are the bunch of investigation and cash

receipts (36 in number). Ex.A13 are the bunch of advance

receipts. Ex.A14 are the bunch of prescriptions. Ex.A15 are the

bunch of medical bills for follow up treatment. Ex.A16 are the

bunch of investigation reports. Ex.A17 are the bunch of X-Ray

films and CT scan reports.

22. In order to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the

petitioner/injured, the driver of the alleged crime RTC bus bearing

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

No.AP-29Z-249 got examined himself as RW1. During his cross-

examination he admitted that criminal case was registered against

him and he took bail from the Police Station. He also deposed that

he had not given in writing to the police that he is no way

concerned with the accident.

23. Therefore, from the foregoing discussion, it can be safely held

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

the driver of crime RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249 and there is

no contributory negligence on part of the injured which finding of

the Tribunal attains finality and requires no interference by this

Court. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant

in M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2017 that there is no contributory

negligence on part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-249

of Karimnagar -II for occurrence of the said accident, is untenable.

24. The other contention of the learned counsel appellant/RTC is

that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the age and income of

the petitioner/injured without any documentary proof and

calculated the compensation.

25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of 2016 contended that though the petitioner

had adduced necessary evidence and filed documentary proof

under Ex.A10 evidencing the income of the petitioner, but the

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

learned Tribunal failed to consider the same and took very meager

amount towards the monthly income of the injured and calculated

loss of earnings.

26. In this regard, a perusal of the Salary Certificate marked

under Ex.A10 issued by the Proprietor of Sri Ramakrishna

Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds, who was also examined as PW3,

clearly discloses that the petitioner/injured used to work as

Supervisor in their Fertilizer shop since 10 years and he used to

pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards his salary. Due to sustaining of

Head injury and mental disorderness, the petitioner/injured

stopped working in their shop.

27. Therefore from the above oral evidence of PW3 coupled with

the Salary Certificate under Ex.A10, it is clear that the

petitioner/injured used to earn an amount of Rs.8,000/- per

month. Hence, this Court, by considering the same, is inclined to

interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby fix an

amount of Rs.8,000/- towards monthly income of the injured while

calculating the compensation.

28. So far as percentage of disability is concerned, a perusal of

Ex.A9-Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, District

Government Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, clearly discloses that the

petitioner is suffering with 71% permanent disability relating to

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

severe mental illness and the cause for the said disability is shown

to be Disease and Infection. But, the Tribunal in its impugned

judgment took the disability percentage @ 100% and calculated

loss of earnings which this Court finds to be on higher side and is

inclined to interfere with the same and hereby consider disability @

71% as per Disability Certificate under Ex.A9 and calculate loss of

earnings as under:-

Loss of earnings = Monthly income x percentage of disability x 12 x

relevant multiplier.

= Rs.8,000/- x 71% x 12 x 14

=Rs.9,54,240/-

29. Apart from awarding loss of earnings, the Tribunal also

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

Rs.2,91,181/- towards medical bills, Rs.50,000/- towards

transportation and extra nourishment which this Court finds the

same to be reasonable considering Exs.A5 to A17 and is not

inclined to interfere with the same.

30. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation

under different Heads as detailed below:-

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

S.No. Description of Head Amount Amount awarded by awarded by this Tribunal Court

1. Loss of earnings due Rs.8,40,000/- Rs.9,54,240 to disability

2. Medical Bills Rs.2,91,181/- -

3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- -

4. Transportation and Rs.50,000/- -

Extra Nourishment

5. Attendant charges - Rs.5,000/-

6. Total compensation Rs.12,31,181/- Rs.13,50,421/-

31. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for

appellant/injured that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding

future prospects to the income of the petitioner.

32. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that when the injured is

leading a miserable life and not having any capacity to earn, then

in such case, future prospects may be awarded. In the instant

case, as seen from record, the injured is not suffering from 100%

disability and there is no amputation sustained by him to any part

of the body except suffering from mental illness which can be

cured at a later point of time by consuming suitable medicines and

followup treatment. Hence, this Court considers that it is not

necessary to award future prospects in this case.

MGP,J MACMA.No.1762 of 2016 and

33. As far as interest on the compensation amount and liability

is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

findings of the learned Tribunal as they are in proper perspective.

34. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2017 filed by

appellant/RTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of 2016 is

partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by

the Tribunal from Rs.12,31,181/- to Rs.13,50,421/-. Except the

said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other

aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.14.02.2025 ysk