Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Kilaru Raghu Kumar on 24 January, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1473 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.07.2022
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum - IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter will be
referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2015, the 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.6,00,000/-
against the Respondent/Corporation for the injuries sustained
by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.10.2012.
The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained
by him in the accident is that on 21.10.2012 at 11.30 PM he
MGP,J
boarded Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110 (hereinafter will be
referred as 'crime vehicle') at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad.
b) When the bus reached outskirts of pamanugunda Village
at about 4.15 AM i.e., on the next day early morning the driver
of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, caused
it over turned by the side of the road. Due to which the
petitioner and other inmates of the bus sustained multiple
injuries and fractures. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted
to KIMS Hospital, Narketpally for treatment, wherein he got first
aid treatment and later shifted to Sentini Hospital Private
Limited, Vijayawada for better treatment. Thereafter, he took
follow up treatment at Krishna Institution of Medical Sciences,
Secunderabad as he sustained Hemipersis on right side and
post traumatic central cord syndrome with quadriparesis and
other injuries all over the body.
c) A case in Crime No.227 of 2012 was registered for the
offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the
driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner is a retired employee
aged about 63 years at the time of the accident. Even after
discharge also the petitioner is attending for medical treatment
regularly and he spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards
MGP,J
medical treatment and Rs.1,50,000/- towards physiotherapy
treatment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, he claimed
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent filed counter denying the averments
of the petition including the involvement of the crime vehicle,
negligence on the part of the driver. It is mainly contended that
the claim of the petitioner under different heads is highly
excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the
rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC Bus
bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if
so, to what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
6. It is pertinent to note that in the said accident, apart from
the respondent herein, other injured in the same accident also
filed claim petition vide MVOP No.49 of 2015. As seen from the
impugned order, since both the cases are arising out of the
MGP,J
same accident, both the cases were clubbed vide orders in
I.A.No.22 of 2020 and a common trial was conducted in both
the cases. So far as the present Appeal is concerned, the
claimant/respondent herein was examined as PW2 apart from
examining PWs 3 to 6 and relying on Exs.A7 to A14. On the
other hand, there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced
on behalf of the appellant/corporation to deny the claim of the
petitioner/claimant/respondent.
7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed common order in
MVOP Nos.49 of 2015 and 50 of 2015. So far as, MVOP No.50
of 2015 is concerned, the said petition was partly allowed
awarding compensation of Rs.2,14,513/- with interest @ 7.5%
per annum. Aggrieved by the impugned common order in MVOP
Nos.49 of 2015 and 50 of 2015, the Appellant/APSRTC
Corporation filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned
common order only to the extent of MVOP No.50 of 2015.
8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC Corporation, Sri Kadaru
Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant
MGP,J
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 counsel
for the appellant is that there is no negligence on the part of
driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110 of Autonagar
Depot and in fact the driver was driving the bus slowly. It was
further contended that the learned Tribunal relied on Exs.A1
and A2 in MVOP No.49 of 2015 to establish that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus
but the same is no conclusive proof to hold that the driver of the
bus was rash and negligent.
11. As stated supra, since the claim petitions in MVOP No.49
of 2015 and MVOP No. 50 of 2015 are arising out of the same
accident, the learned Tribunal while passing common order in
both the cases relied upon Exs.A1 and A2 marked in MVOP
No.49 of 2015 to decide issue No.1 in MVOP No.50 of 2015.
Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime No.227 of 2012 of Police Station
Narketpally and Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed in Crime No.227
MGP,J
of 2012. Apart from the documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 (claimant in
MVOP No.49 of 2015) and PW2 (claimant in MVOP No.50 of
2015). The learned Tribunal observed in the impugned order
that except giving suggestions to PWs 1 and 2, nothing could be
elicited from the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 to establish
that they have not sustained injuries in the said accident.
Suggestions were given to PWs 1 and 2 that they did not travel
in the crime vehicle on the date of accident but the same was
denied by PWs 1 and 2. Further, a perusal of the record
discloses that as per Ex.A2 charge sheet, PWs 1 and 2 were
traveling in the said bus on the date of accident and that the
complaint was lodged by one A. Sathyanarayana (LW1/injured)
on 22.10.2012 i.e., the same date of accident alleging that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0110 with high speed. Based
on the said report, a case in Crime No.227 of 2012 was
registered by the Police, Nareketpally. As rightly observed by
the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, there was no
rebuttal evidence against the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant/injured. As seen from Ex.A2, the
claimants in these two cases were shown as LWs 3 and 9 and
MGP,J
the defacto complainant, who alleged to have lodged report
before the concerned Police was shown as LW1. Apart from
them, there are other passengers, who have sustained injuries
in the said accident and they are LW2 - Abbaru Lopa Mudra,
LW4 Jagarlamoodi Raghava Rao, LW7 - Kanakaparthy Bhavani,
LW8 - Danala Shailu. The said incident was witnessed by LW5-
Thmuati Aruna and LW6 Thumati Vikram. The Sub Inspector of
Police, Narketpally Police Station has filed charge sheet against
the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 337 of the
Indian Penal Code. Thus, the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2
coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A2
establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the crime vehicle by its driver.
12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that only due
to gross negligence on the part of the claimant injuries were
sustained by the claimant. In order to establish the above said
contention, there is no material placed either before the learned
Tribunal or before this Court. Moreover, there is no explanation
as to how the negligence on the part of the appellant can cause
injuries to him, more particularly, when the appellant was
sitting inside the bus.
MGP,J
13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant argued
that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding amount
of Rs.2,14,513/- @ 7.5% per annum under different heads,
which is highly excessive and out of all proportions.
14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards
transportation and extra nourishment. Since the claimant/
injured sustained grievous injuries at the time of accident, he
requires good nutritious food along with vitamin supplements to
recover quickly from the injuries. Further, the injured took
treatment and also follow up treatment in three different
hospitals at Vijayawada, Narketally and Secunderabad, he
might have incurred certain amount towards transportation
charges. Though the claimant/injured claimed Rs.35,925/-
towards transportation by relying on Ex.A13, the learned
Tribunal failed to consider the same on the ground that the
injured failed to examine the owner or the person, who issued
Ex.A13. Thus, the amount of Rs.10,000/- each awarded by the
learned towards transportation and extra nourishment is
appearing to be just and reasonable.
15. The injured relied upon Exs.A7 to A10 and A14 to
substantiate that he incurred Rs.1,44,513/- towards medical
MGP,J
expenses. Exs.A7 to A10 and A14 are the original discharge
summary and follow up card issued by KIMS Hospital at
Narketpally, original discharge summary issued by Sentini
Hospital, Vijayawada, original discharge summary issued by
KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, original final bill issued by
Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada and IP and final Bill issued by
KIMS, Secunderabad. The above said documentary evidence is
well supported by the evidence of PWs 3 to 6. PWs 3 and 4 are
the consultant orthopedic centre and billing incharge in Sentini
Hospital, Vijayawada, PWs 5 and 6 are the consultant and
deputy billing manager in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. Thus,
the amount of Rs.1,44,513/- towards medical expenses
awarded by the learned Tribunal is also appearing to be
justified.
16. Now coming to the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering for
loss of pleasure and amenities, as seen from the record, the
injured alleged to have undergone surgery on 01.05.2013 in
KIMS hospital, Secunderabad. Further, the injured alleged to
have taken physiotherapy treatment at Sentini Hospital,
Vijayawada for the post traumatic central cord syndrome. The
injured was retired employee aged about 63 years at the time of
MGP,J
accident and at that old age he suffered grievous injuries, due to
which he might have suffered physical and mental agony.
Hence, the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by
the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering for loss of
pleasure and amenities is appearing to be justified.
17. Except raising the grounds in the grounds of appeal, the
appellant/APSRTC Corporation has not placed any material
either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court to
establish that the compensation amount of Rs.2,14,513/-
awarded by the learned Tribunal against the claim of the
injured at Rs.6,00,000/- is excessive or exorbitant. Though the
injured/claimant claimed Rs.1,68,000/- towards physiotherapy
charges by relying on EX.A11, the learned Tribunal did not
consider the same on the ground that the injured/claimant
failed to examine the physiotherapist, who has given treatment
to the injured/claimant.
18. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC further
submitted that the interest on the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is high. But it is pertinent
to note that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest on the
compensation amount @ 7.5% per annum by relying on the
MGP,J
decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Mannat Johal and others 1. Hence, the
above contention is unsustainable.
19. Thus, viewed from any angle, the above contentions of the
learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC are untenable, more
particularly, in the absence of any material placed by the
appellant either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
Appellant failed to establish any of the grounds in the appeal to
succeed in the Appeal. There are no tenable grounds to
interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned
Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed.
20. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 24.01.2025
AS
1 2019 2 TAC 705 (SC)
