Telangana High Court
The Manging Director vs P Krishniah on 27 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2116 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum- The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.2061 of 2015,
dated 31.01.2018, the respondents/TSRTC in the said M.V.O.P.
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 claim
petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along
with interest for the injuries sustained to him in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 10.04.2015. It is stated by the
petitioner/injured that on 10.04.2015, when the petitioner/injured
was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-AG-0877 from
Chowderpally Village towards Kotra Village and when reached near
Polkampally Village of Vangoor Mandal, at that time, one RTC Bus
bearing No.AP-28-Z-9527 came at a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner. As
a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and received bleeding
MGP,J
injuries and fractures and immediately he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy and later shifted to Century
Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for better treatment.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Vangoor Police Station
registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC.
It is stated by the petitioner/injured that he is an agricultural
labour and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the said
accident and on account of the injuries sustained to him, he is
unable to attend his agricultural work and therefore filed claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the
respondents/TSRTC
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a common counter denying the
averments made in the claim petition including, manner of
accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent of the
driver of RTC, age, occupation and income of the petitioner. They
also contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle and that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and 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:-
MGP,J
(i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting
injuries to the petitioner, P.Krishnaiah, due to the rash
and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-
9527 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation
and if so at what quantum and what is the liability of
the respondents?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured apart from
examining himself as PW1, got examined PWs 2 to 4 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A9 on his behalf. On behalf of
respondent/TSRTC no oral or documentary evidence was adduced
in support of their contention.
8. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.6,72,100/- along
with interest @ 7.5% payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly
and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/TSRTC in
the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the
Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
9. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for
appellants/T.S.R.T.C and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopi Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record including
the grounds of Appeal.
MGP,J
10. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellants/TSRTC are that the learned Tribunal erred in holding
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-9527; erred in not
making the owner and insurer of Motorcycle bearing No.P-29-AG-
0877; erred in fixing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.4,000/-
instead of Rs.3,000/- and also contended that the Tribunal
awarded excess amounts under the heads of pain and suffering,
transportation and extra nourishment and therefore, prayed to
allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
contended that the amount awarded towards injuries is very
meager and hence requested to enhance the same.
12. Now the point that emerges for determination is ,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
POINTS:-
13. As seen from the record, the petitioner/injured, in order to
establish his case, examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the
contents made in the claim petition and deposed about the manner
of accident, fracture injuries sustained to him and treatment
undergone by him. In order to prove the injuries sustained to him,
MGP,J
he got examined PWs.2 & 4, who are the Orthopedic Surgeons in
Century Hospital and Susmita Orthopedic Clinic.
14. PW2-Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in Century Hospital
deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their
Hospital on 11.04.2015 with the following injuries:- (1)crush injury
to right leg, (2) fracture tibia, (3) fracture fibula of right leg. It is
also stated by him that the petitioner underwent surgery in the
form of debridment and internal fixation of bone and that the
petitioner's right foot was viable and there was no skin on the leg
between knee and ankle, as such the petitioner was taken for
reconstruction procedure in the form of flap revision of wound,
debridement plus cross leg flap + Slit Skin grafting and the
petitioner was discharged on 12.05.2015. He further deposed that
the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and
thus, he assessed his disability @ 50% as per MC Bride's scale.
15. PW4, who is also an Orthopedic Surgeon and who issued
disability certificate deposed in his evidence that the petitioner
came to their hospital on10.02.2017 with crush injury of right leg,
fracture of right tibia and fibula and after examining him clinically
and radiologically, he found that the petitioner sustained disability
with regard to malunion of right leg, and found limping due to
which he cannot sit and squat and cannot walk for long distances
MGP,J
and cannot do his work and as such, he assessed his physical
disability @ 60% and loss of earning capacity @ 100% as per the
guidelines of Kessler and issued Ex.A5-Disability Certificate.
16. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1- FIR
shows that Police of Vangoor Police Station, Mahaboobnagar
District, registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2015 under Section
337 of IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under
Ex.A2 against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-9527.
Ex.A3 is the copy of MLC which shows that the petitioner
underwent laceration to his right leg , right foot and abrasions on
his right elbow. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by
Century Super Specialty Hospital. Ex.A5 is the Disability
Certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon. Ex.A6 is the Hospital
Final bill. Ex.A7 is the Pharmacy bill. Ex.A8 are the bunch of lab
reports. Ex.A9 is the X-ray film.
17. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the
documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 & A2, it is made clear
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-9527. As the rider of the
motorcycle is not held liable for the alleged accident, therefore, the
owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are not made as
necessary parties to the claim petition. Hence, the contention of
MGP,J
the learned Standing Counsel for appellants/TSRTC that the
Tribunal erred in not considering the owner and insurer of
motorcycle as necessary parties, is unsustainable.
18. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned
Standing Counsel for the appellants/TSRTC during the course of
his submissions contended that the learned Tribunal erred in
awarding an amount of Rs.24,000/- under the head of loss of
earnings and also erred in fixing the income of the petitioner @
Rs.4,000/- and also erred in awarding excess amounts under the
heads of pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment.
19. It is relevant to mention that though the petitioner filed
Ex.A5-Disability Certificate showing that he sustained 60%
physical disability and 100% loss of earning capacity, but the
learned Tribunal did not consider the same as the doctor who
issued the said disability certificate had never treated the petitioner
and is not a member of medical board. Moreover, there is also
variation in the assessment of disability assessed by PW2 who
treated the petitioner. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not
considered the said Disability Certificate, however granted an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. Further, considering the treatment underwent by the
petitioner and the documents marked under Exs.A6 to A9 showing
MGP,J
the amount incurred by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.4,98,167/- towards Hospital charges
and pharmacy bills which this Court finds the same to be true and
correct upon verification. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal
had awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/-
for transportation and extra nourishment.
20. It is also pertinent to mention that due to the injuries and
fractures sustained by the petitioner/injured, he was unable to
perform his agricultural operations for a period of 6 months.
Hence, the learned Tribunal, by considering his income @
Rs.4,000/- per month awarded an amount of Rs.24,000/- under
the head of loss of earnings for a period of 6 months. This Court
finds the above compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reasonable and do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court do not find
any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the learned
Tribunal which is in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is
devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
MGP,J
23. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.27.01.2025
ysk
