Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Shanawaz Khan on 27 February, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.833 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.06.2017
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum - Judge, Family Court - cum - VI Additional District
Judge, Khammam (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.T.O.P.No.81 of 2014, the respondent No.2/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.3,00,000/-
against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained
by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 24.11.2011.
The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained
by him in the accident is that on 23.11.2011 at 8.00 PM he
along with his wife boarded APSRTC Bus bearing registration
MGP,J
No.AP 28 Z 5454 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle')
at Vijayawada Bus Stand; when the bus reached outskirts of
Narketpalli at about 2.00 AM on 24.11.2011 the respondent
No.1 i.e., the driver of the bus drove the crime vehicle in rash
and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the
stationed tanker bearing registration No. AP 16 TU 6002; as a
result, the petitioner and other passengers sustained injuries.
b) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner claimed
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are driver of the crime vehicle and the Corporation
respective respectively.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent No.2 filed counter and whereas the
driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 remained
exparte. In the counter, the respondent No.2 mainly contended
that there was negligence on the part of respondent No.1 and in
fact the driver of cement tanker has parked the vehicle in the
middle of the road without taking any proper care and caution
and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.
MGP,J
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent driving of the drive of the APSRTC Bus
A.P. 28 Z 5454?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If
so, to what amount and from which of the
respondent?
iii) To what relief?
6. In order to establish his claim before the learned
Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 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.1,87,129/- as compensation to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/respondent No.2/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, Sri Sandeep
MGP,J
Kumar Bodla, 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 Standing
Counsel for the appellant is that there is no negligence on the
part of driver of the crime vehicle and in fact the cement tanker
bearing No.AP 16 TU 6002 was parked in the middle of the road
without taking any precautions.
11. In support of the above contention, the respondent No.1
i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1. in
the chief examination, RW1 deposed that when his bus reached
near KIMS Hospital, Narketpally on NH 9 at about 2.00 hours,
one lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 6002 which was proceeding in
front suddenly stopped by the driver without
signaling/cautioning the vehicles which are coming behind and
due to the sudden act of the driver of lorry his bus hit the lorry.
He further deposed that there was no negligence on his part.
This version of RW1 is quite contrary to the version of
MGP,J
respondent No.2 in the counter, wherein it was averred that the
Cement Tanker was parked in the vehicle in the middle of the
road without taking any proper care and caution. There is no
whisper in the counter of respondent No.2 about applying
sudden breaks by the driver of cement tanker. As rightly
observed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, as per
the contents of charge sheet it is clear that RTC Bus (crime
vehicle) dashed against stationed cement tanker. Thus, in order
to avoid the liability, the respondent No.1 as RW1 introduced a
new theory that the accident occurred as the driver of the
cement tanker applied sudden breaks. Even otherwise, it is to
be seen that time of the accident was in the midnight and in
such circumstances, no vehicle will apply sudden breaks
unnecessarily. It is not the case of the respondents, that
without any reason the driver of the cement lorry applied
sudden breaks. Further, a driver driving behind another
vehicle, shall keep sufficient distance, commensurate with the
traffic conditions, from the vehicle ahead, so as to be able to
stop (pull up) the vehicle safely if the vehicle ahead suddenly
slows down or stops. It is to be seen that the respondent No.1
is driving a vehicle, which is a public transport vehicle carrying
passengers and in such circumstances a great deal of caution
MGP,J
and precautions are to be taken by the driver of the crime
vehicle while driving the same.
12. 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 (wound certificate). Ex.A1 is the
certified copy of FIR in Crime No.209 of 2011 of Nakrekal Police
Station. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, which
discloses that the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z
5454 drove the same in rash and negligent manner collided
against the lorry tanker. A perusal of the Exs.A1 and A2
discloses that the de-facto complaint, who lodged complaint
against the driver, is none other than the driver of the cement
tanker. In Ex.A1 it is alleged by the de-facto complainant that
on 24.11.2011 at 0200 hours due to traffic, he stopped his lorry
tanker as other vehicles are stopped in front of him and in the
mean time the driver of APSRTC Bus No. AP 28 Z 5454 while
proceeding towards Hyderabad from Suryapet drove the bus in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his lorry tanker
from backside. This aspect of traffic jam at the relevant point of
time at the scene of offence was suppressed by the respondent
No.1. Moreover, it is the contention of the respondent No.1 that
the driver of the cement tanker, which was proceeding in front,
MGP,J
suddenly stopped without signaling/cautioning the vehicles,
which are coming behind but he has not explained as to what
were the signals or cautions that are expected to be followed by
any driver before applying sudden breaks. That apart 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
cement lorry. Even PW1 deposed in his cross examination that
there were other vehicles parked in front of said lorry. When
other vehicles in front of the cement lorry were stopped due to
traffic jam, it is obvious that the driver of cement lorry would be
compelled to apply breaks to avoid damage and at the same
time it is the bounden duty of the respondent No.1 to be
cautious while driving a public transport vehicle carrying
passengers.
13. The respondent No.1 is an employee of respondent No.2
representing the APSRTC Corporation. On one hand, the
respondent No.2 is contending in the counter that respondent
No.1 hit the stationed cement lorry and on the other hand the
respondent No.1 deposed in his chief examination that as the
cement lorry applied sudden breaks, he hit the cement lorry.
MGP,J
There is veracity in the version of respondent Nos.1 and 2 with
regard to the manner of the accident. The respondent Nos.1
and 2 cannot blow hot and cold at a time on the same issue.
Further, in the cross examination, RW1 admitted that police
registered a case against him and that charge sheet was filed
under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the case
of RW1 that he has not seen the cement lorry that was moving
in front side. But without due diligence, the respondent No.1
drove the crime vehicle in a careless manner and caused
injuries not only to the passengers but also to himself. Thus, by
any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of cement lorry.
14. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly manifests the
negligence on part of the driver of the crime vehicle in avoiding
the accident by controlling the bus. Hence, this Court is of the
view 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
crime vehicle (bus).
15. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the APSRTC is that the learned Tribunal ought to have
MGP,J
dismissed the OP on the sole ground of non-joinder of the
necessary party i.e., insurance company of the tanker bearing
registration No. AP 16/TU-60025 on which the petitioner was
driving.
16. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not driving on the
tanker and in fact the petitioner was traveling in the crime
vehicle i.e., the bus belonging to the respondent. Further, when
it is established that the accident did not occur due to the
negligence on the part of driver of cement tanker, there is no
necessity to join the insurance company of the cement lorry.
Hence, the above contention is unsustainable.
17. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the APSRTC is that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that
no proof of the income of the injured was filed and as such the
learned Tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration of
Rs.9,000/- per month under Minimum Wages Act, while
calculating the compensation.
18. The petitioner claimed to be earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, however, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same
on the ground that no document was filed to that effect. Thus,
the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the
MGP,J
injured at Rs.9,000/- by considering the Minimum Wages Act
by treating the occupation as 'worker'. As per the version of the
injured, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but he did not
produce any documentary evidence to establish his claim.
Moreover, he did not even specifically plead as to what was his
avocation through which he was earning Rs.10,000/-. In such
circumstances, fixing the monthly salary of the injured at
Rs.9,000/- is appearing to be on higher side, more particularly,
in the absence of any documentary evidence produced on behalf
of the injured petitioner. In the absence of any evidence, the
learned Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 fixed the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Hence, this
Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the injured at
Rs.4,500/-.
19. The learned Tribunal by considering the bed ridden period
of the injured as six months awarded Rs.54,000/- towards loss
of earnings. Since the monthly income of the injured is fixed at
Rs.4,500/-, the injured is awarded Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 6
months) towards loss of earnings.
1 2011 (2) An.W.R. 988 (SC)
MGP,J
20. As per Ex.A3, the petitioner alleged to have sustained
swelling over upper and lower lids of eye, laceration near left eye
and laceration over medial aspect of middle of left leg.
Considering the nature of injuries and the treatment obtained
by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal by considering Exs.P4 to
P18 awarded an amount of Rs.83,129/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards traveling expenses, attendant
charges and extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/- towards pain,
sufferings and mental agony, which are appearing to be just and
reasonable.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is required
to be modified so far as in reducing loss of earnings awarded by
the learned Tribunal is concerned and the remaining part of the
impugned order holds undisturbed.
22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The quantum
of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby
reduced from Rs.1,87,129/- to Rs.1,60,129/- which shall carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the
MGP,J
compensation amount within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 27.02.2025
AS
