Telangana High Court
Mudavath Kishan vs Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad on 10 January, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.277 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- the Court of
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act -cum- the
Court of Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.25 of 2014,
dated 12.09.2019, the claim petitioner/injured in the said O.P.
preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
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 and
Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 of M.V.Act
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred in the year 2013.
It is stated by the petitioner that on 06.09.2013 at about 15.25
hours, when the petitioner along with Gorati Kondal was
proceeding towards Singarajpally sub-station from Thowklapuram
Village side on Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No.AP-24L-5005 and
when reached outskirts of the said Thowklapuram Village, one RTC
MGP,J
Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-8 came in a rash and negligent manner
from Singarajpally side and gave dash to the motorcycle on which
the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the persons travelling on
the said motorcycle received grievous injuries and fractures and
were shifted to Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy in 108
Ambulance and from there, the petitioner was shifted to Yashoda
Hospital, Malalkpet, Hyderabad, for better treatment.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Dindi Police Station
registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2013 under Section 338 IPC,
conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of
RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-8.
5. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that prior to accident,
he was quite hale and healthy and was working as Junior Lineman
in Electricity Department, Dindi and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per
month approximately. Due to the said accident, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries and was on leave for 30 days and
incurred huge amount for his treatment and medicines. As such,
he filed claim petition against the respondent/Corporation seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on all counts.
6. Respondent/RTC filed its counter denying the averments of
the claim petition including, age, income, avocation and contended
that the owner and insurer of the motorbike on which the
petitioner travelled were not added as party respondents to the
MGP,J
claim petition and that the compensation claimed is excess and
exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim made against it.
7. Based on the contentions made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting
trial:-
(i) Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-
11Z-8?
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured himself was
examined as PW1 and got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. On behalf of respondents, no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced.
9. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned Tribunal had partly- allowed the claim petition
of the petitioner/injured by awarding compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of petition till the date of realization payable by the
respondent/RTC. Having not satisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claim petitioner/injured preferred the
present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
MGP,J
10. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/injured as well as Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent/TSRTC.
11. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/injured is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider
Ex.A4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the appellant was
admitted in Yashoda Hospital and took treatment in the said
Hospital from 06.09.2013 to 24.09.2013. It also contended that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A7- Original final bill and
pharmacy bills and failed to award compensation under the heads
of loss of earnings, pain and suffering, medical bills and Hospital
charges and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/RTC
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the
aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the point that arises for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
14. This Court has perused the evidence and documents
available on record. The petitioner/injured examined himself as
MGP,J
PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and
deposed about the manner of accident. During cross-examination,
he admitted that he was driving the Hero Honda CD Delux bearing
No.AP-24L-5005 and the complainant was the pillion rider on the
said motor cycle. He also stated that he was having license to drive
the motorcycle. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him,
he got examined PWs 2 & 3 on his behalf.
15. PW2- Surgeon and RMO in Yashoda Hospital, deposed in his
evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital on
06.09.2013 with the following injures:-
1. Head injury, Polytrauma, Facial injuries.
2. Right Fronto Ethmoidal fracture with nasal bond
3. Laceration about 5x3 cm, height over (Right) Bridge of nose
4. Contusion evulsion of upper eye lid.
5. Sutured Lacerated wound 4 cm over right foot.
6. Contusion of frontal loose with haemorrhagic with fracture
depress.
16. He further stated that the petitioner was operated for CSF
leak by performing Bifrontal Craniotomy + Excision of deprened
fracture Duraplaty + Closure of CSF leak under Anesthesia and he
recovered well and discharged on 24.09.2013. He stated that the
petitioner spent an amount of Rs.26,495/- towards post operation
medical bills. He further deposed that the petitioner cannot
MGP,J
perform his normal works and he requires plastic surgery for
depressed nasal bone rhino-plastic which costs Rs.2,50,000/-
towards hospital charges.
17. PW3-RMO of Tirumala Hospital, Hyderabad, deposed in his
evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital on
26.09.2013 with complications of high grade fever, cough and with
Chill and was treated with sympathetic treatment and antibiotic
fluid and was discharged on 31.09.2013. The petitioner had spent
an amount of Rs.1,05,494/- towards Hospital bills which includes
discharge, medicine and consultation. He also stated that ExsA6
to A8 were issued by their Hospital.
18. Though PWs 2 & 3 were cross-examined, nothing adverse
was elicited from them to disbelieve their testimony. Hence, their
evidence can be treated as worthwhile.
19. Coming to the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A10, a
perusal of Ex.A1 shows that Police of Dindi Police Station
registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2013 under Section 337 IPC,
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against
the driver of the APSRTC Bus. Ex.A3 is the Medico Legal
record/Injury Certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital which shows
that the petitioner had received (i) RTA-Head Injury, (ii) Laceration
about (5x3cm) over (Rt) Bridge of Nose, (iii) Evulsionof upper eye
lid, (iv) Sututed lacerated wound (4cm) over (Rt) foot, (v) Right
MGP,J
fronto Ethmoidal fracture and (vi) Nasal bone fracture and the said
injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary
issued by Yashoda Hospital. Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary of
Tirumala Multi Speciality Hospital. Ex.A6 is the report of Yashoda
Hospital pertaining to Plain CT Scan of Brain and Facial Bones of
the petitioner/injured. Ex.A7 is the Final Bill issued by Tirumala
Multi Specialty Hospital showing that the petitioner incurred a
sum of Rs.1,05,494/- towards Hospital bill. Ex.A8 are the original
prescriptions, investigation report and scan report. Ex.A9 is the
copy of SR (APSRTC) and Ex.A10 are the X-ray films.
20. From the above oral evidence coupled with the documentary
evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A10, it is clear that the
petitioner/injured sustained grievous injuries in an accident that
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus
bearing No.AP-11Z-8.
21. Coming to the compensation awarded, the learned Tribunal
granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses, a
sum of Rs.80,000/- for medical treatment and Rs.10,000/-
towards pain and suffering which in total arrived at Rs.1,00,000/-.
22. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/injured in the present Appeal is that the learned
Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A7- Final bill issued by Tirumala
MGP,J
Multi Speciality Hospital and also failed to consider the medical
bills filed along with Ex.A7.
23. A perusal of Ex.A7 shows that the petitioner had been
diagnosed for post operative Sepsis in Tirumala Multi Speciality
Hospital and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,05,494/-
towards room rent, medicines, investigations and consultation
charges apart from treatment undergone by him. This Court
considers the said amount to be desirable and is inclined to award
the same. A perusal of the medical bills annexed to Ex.A7 shows
that the petitioner/injured had incurred an amount of Rs.24,028/-
towards purchase of medicines. This Court deems fit and proper to
award the same to the petitioner/injured. Hence, the total
compensation to which the petitioner/injured is entitled to is
calculated as under:-
Sl.No. Details of head Amount awarded Amount
(1) (2) by Tribunal awarded by
(3) this Court
1 Transport Rs.10,000/-
expenses
2. Medical treatment Rs.80,000/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
4. Final Hospital Bill - Rs.1,05,494/-
amount
5. Medical bills Rs.24,028/-
6. Total Rs.1,00,000/-
7 Total (3 + 4) = Rs.2,29,522/-
24. Hence, the appellant/injured is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.2,29,522/-
MGP,J
25. As far as interest on the compensation is concerned, the
learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 6 % per annum which this
Court finds it to be meager and is inclined to enhance the same @
7.5% per annum by relying upon the decision of the by relying upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir
Singh and others 1.
26. In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/injured is
partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,29,522/- which shall
interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the respondent/RTC within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Upon such deposit, the appellant/injured is entitled to
withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be
no order as to costs.
27. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.10.01.2025
ysk
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
