Andhra Pradesh State Road Tramsport ... vs M Pramila
2025 Latest Caselaw 1049 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1049 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh State Road Tramsport ... vs M Pramila on 10 January, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 OF 2018


JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Decree and Award dated 13.04.2017 passed

in M.V.O.P.No.1287 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal -cum- The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, the respondents in the said M.V.O.P./APSRTC

preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting

aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/injured filed

a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest and

costs for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 19.01.2013. It is stated by the petitioner/injured

that on 19.01.2013 at about 3.30 P.M., when she was going by

walk from her residence at Dayanandagar towards Malakpet

Mahaboob Mansion Gunj and when reached opposite Malakpet

Gunj, an APSRTC Bus Bearing No.AP-29X-0470 came in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed from Dilsukhnagar side and

gave dash to the petitioner and ran over from her left leg due to

MGP,J

which, she fell down and sustained grievous fracture injuries.

Immediately, she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital at Malakpet,

Hyderabad and was admitted as inpatient. It is stated by the

petitioner/injured that she sustained "crush injury left leg and foot

with circumferential degloving injury and fracture of both bones of

left leg and other multiple injuries all over the body" and was

discharged from the Hospital on 28.01.2013 with the advice of

regular follow up treatment and had spent more than a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards Medical bill and extra nourishment. Due to

amputation of her left leg above knee, the petitioner was confined

to bed. As such, the petitioner had engaged an attendant to look

after her welfare and is paying a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.

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

registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2013 under Section 338 IPC. It

is further stated by the petitioner that due to amputation of her left

leg, she had lost her Teacher job in Dawn High School and lost her

monthly income @ Rs.18,000/- and sustained irreparable loss and

therefore filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest against the Respondents/RTC.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2/RTC filed a common counter denying

the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of

accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligence on part

MGP,J

of driver of crime vehicle, disability sustained by the petitioner and

contended that the alleged accident occurred only due to the

negligence on part of the petitioner while alighting from the bus

and further contended that Police of Chaderghat Police Station

booked a false case against the driver of the RTC Bus and that the

compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed

to dismiss the claim against it.

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

learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting

trial:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner-M.Pramila, due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-0470?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation?

If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, petitioner/injured examined herself as

PW1, got examined PWs2 to 4 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A9 on

her behalf. On behalf of Respondents/RTC no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced.

8. After considering the evidence and documents available on

record, the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by

MGP,J

awarding compensation of Rs.20,75,200/- along with interest @

9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved

by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the respondents in

O.P./RTC.

9. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel

for APSRTC and Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the

respondent/injured. Perused the record.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/RTC while

submitting his arguments, contended that the interest awarded by

the learned Tribunal is on higher side i.e. @ 9% per annum instead

of 7.5% per annum and hence, requested to reduce the same.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/injured contended that the learned Tribunal after

considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation

and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

MGP,J

POINT:-

13. It is pertinent to state that though the learned Standing

Counsel for appellant/RTC has urged as many as 10 grounds in

the Appeal, but he has mainly focused his attention to the extent of

awarding excess interest by the learned Tribunal for which learned

counsel for the respondents did not raise any objection. However, a

perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal discloses

that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had

answered all the issues including, rash and negligent driving of the

driver of RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-29Z-0470.

14. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the

learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the age, income and

disability sustained to her, had awarded compensation under

different heads as detailed below:-

S.No.       Name of the Head                  Amount awarded
1           Loss of earnings                  Rs.15,03,360/-
2.          Pain and sufferance               Rs.30,000/-
3.          Loss of amenities                 R.25,000/-
4.          Medical expenditure               Rs.16,841/-

5. Amount incurred towards cost of Rs.5,00,000/-

Artificial limb

6. TOTAL Rs.20,75,201/-

                                              rounded                  to
                                              Rs.20,75,200/-

                                                                       MGP,J

15. Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded with an amount of

Rs.20,75,200/- towards compensation. This Court finds the said

compensation to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with

the same.

16. So far as interest on the compensation amount is concerned,

as seen from the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal granted

interest @ 9% per annum, which this Court considers it to be

excessive and is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others 1 and hereby reduces the rate of interest

awarded by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2018 filed by the