Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc And Another vs Syeeda Begum on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.4052 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation -appellant/
respondent No.1 & 2 filed the present appeal against the Award and
decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter
referred to 'the Tribunal') in O.P.No.2085 of 2011, dated 05.09.2013,
wherein claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the respondents herein in a
motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.01.2011.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred
to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant filed
O.P.No.2085 of 2011 under Section 166 and 163-A of the M.V.Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the injuries received in the bus accident
alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the APSRTC bus. It is contended that on 30.01.2011, the petitioner
travelled by APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8196 to Kamalanagar and
when the bus halted at her bus stop, she went to alight from the bus.
Even as she was alighting from the bus with one foot on the road and
NNR,J
the other still on the footboard of the bus, the driver of the bus, in a
rash and negligent manner without waiting for her to move away from
bus, drove it away. As a result, the petitioner thrown out of the bus and
she fell down on the road and sustained multiple fracture injuries and
grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to
Raghavendra Hospital and later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet
for better treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2011
under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the said PSRTC Bus bearing
No.AP-10-Z-8196.
4. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was
that due to accident, the petitioner sustained crush injury to left hand
with degloving (loss of skin and muscle), fracture of 5th metacarpal,
compound fracture of right radius, compound dislocation of left little
finger with tendon injury, several deep lacerated wounds and abrasion.
Due to the accident petitioner sustained huge loss and claimed an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the
said accident.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondents filed a counter-
affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including
the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income
of the petitioner and submitted that the accident was only due to rash
NNR,J
and negligent act of the petitioner herself but not because of RTC driver
and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the
counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads
as under:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the
petitioner, Sayeeda Begum, due to her involvement in a motor vehicle
accident involving the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8196 while it
was in use in a public place?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at
what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii) To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got
marked Exs.A.1 to A.9, on behalf of petitioner. None examined on behalf
of respondents.
8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into
the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of
Rs.2,62,717/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.
9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the
Corporation/appellant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the
NNR,J
Tribunal erred in not taking the contributory negligence on the part of
the claimant in getting down the bus without properly instructions and
also there was inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging FIR before the Police
about the accident. The Tribunal has also erred in considering the
evidence of PW.2 who is not a treating Doctor and granted claimants
for compensation i.e., i) Rs.1,00,000/- towards Fracture injuries ii)
Rs.1,43,717/- towards Medical Bills, iii) Rs.15,000/- towards removal of
implants iv) Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and v) Rs.2,000/-
towards hospitalization.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is
no dispute with regard to accident and the injuries sustained by the
claimant. In cross Examination, PW.1 & PW.2 were examined and
Exhibits A.1 to A.9 were marked. Learned counsel further contended
that due to said accident, the petitioner suffered permanent disability,
which hampers in the discharge of her household work and has
deprived her of the usual and normal amenities of life. PW2 who is
practicing doctor has also came to conclusion that petitioner suffered
20% of disability, but the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
conceded that petitioner failed to file disability certificate before the
Tribunal and further contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded
NNR,J
compensation by considering all the evidence placed by both the parties
and prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal.
11. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed any appeal and cross appeal
against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the
claimant is satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the
present appeal is that:
1) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
deceased.
2) Whether the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation
amount to the claimants, if so, to what extent?
Point No.1 & 2:
12. Admittedly, the petitioner sustained injuries due to accident
occurred on 30.01.2011. The claimant claimed that she is aged about 45
years at the time of accident, but the Tribunal has taken the age of the
claimants as 58 years, however on going through the entire Tribunal
order and record available, the claimant has not seek compensation
under 'loss of earning' and the Tribunal has only granted compensation
for the fracture injures, medical bills and other hospitalization charges.
As per PW.1 statement, the claimant contended that due to rash and
negligent driving of the RTC bus the accident occurred and claimant
sustained injuries and the Corporation expect oral rebuttal of the claim
NNR,J
has not placed any evidences and only orally stated that due to self
negligent of the claimant, the said accident occurred. Even a bare
perusal of the records, it shows that the Corporation has not placed any
concrete evidence to show that there is contributory negligence on the
part of the claimant while getting down from the bus to set aside the
award and compensation amount passed by the Tribunal.
13. In view of the above observation, this Court is of the considered
view that the Tribunal has rightly considered and granted just
compensation to the claimants/respondent herein and the appeal filed
by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation falls to the ground. As
such, no interference is required by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is
dismissed by confirming the order and decree passed by the Tribunal in
O.P.No.2085 of 2011, dated 05.09.2013. No Costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
27.06.2025
SHA
