Telangana High Court

Apsrtc vs Gaddam Venkanna , Venkateshwarlu on 7 March, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.108 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and

Decree dated 23.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2010 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal") granting a compensation of

Rs.10,89,700/-.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief averments of the petitioner before the Tribunal are

that on 11.01.2009 the petitioner and one B. Kiran were

proceeding towards Krishna Hotel at Pillalamarri bus-stage from

Janagaon by-pass road on motor cycle bearing No.AP-Q-5629 and

on the way at about 2:00 a.m when they reached near S.V.

Engineering College, one R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4284

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high

speed, dashed the motor cycle from behind, due to which the

petitioner who was going as a pillion rider, sustained grievous

injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident he was

shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet, thereafter to Kamineni Hospital,

Hyderabad. That the petitioner incurred more than Rs.4,30,000/-

ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

towards medical expenses and that prior to the accident, he was

hale and healthy and was working as Supervisor in Durga Bhavani

Hotel and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. That the petitioner

sustained permanent disability and his right leg was amputated up

to hip. Thus, prayed the Tribunal to grant a compensation of

Rs.18,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1, the driver of RTC Bus has filed his

counter affidavit denying the averments in the petition and further

contended that he is an experienced person and that even if he is

held liable, it is the respondent No.2/RTC which has to pay the

compensation and that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay such

compensation.

5. The respondent No.2/RTC has filed counter affidavit denying

the petition averments apart from contending that the owner and

insurer of the motor bike bearing No.AP-24-Q-5629 are the

necessary parties to the proceedings and that the petition is bad

for their non-joinder. It was further contended that the rider of the

motor bike did not have a valid driving license and that due to the

negligence of the bike rider, the accident occurred and that there

was no negligence of the bus driver.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-248-Z-

4284?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom it should be collected?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents, no

evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.10,89,700/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree dated 05.09.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal erred in awarding excess compensation. He further

argued that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bike rider and that he was racing on his motor bike

with another bike rider and that due to his rash and negligence,

the accident has occurred. He further argued that the owner and

rider of the motor bike are necessary parties and that the claim

petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He further ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

disputed the income of the deceased and the amount granted by

the Tribunal under various heads.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the

Tribunal was right in granting the compensation and that though

the RTC is raising so many contentions, it has not adduced any

rebuttal evidence before the Tribunal, he prayed to uphold the

award passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28Z-4284 was not rash and negligent while driving the bus on 11.01.2009 at 2:10 a.m on the outskirts of Vijayawada to ECIL causing the accident against motor bike bearing No.AP-Q-

5629 of the deceased?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excess?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2/FIR and Charge sheet reveal

that the driver of RTC bus is the accused and that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

There is no rebuttal evidence lead by the RTC in this regard. PW1

has stated in his evidence that he was going as a pillion rider on

the fateful day and that while they were proceeding from Janagaon

by-pass road towards Krishna Hotel at Pillalamarri bus stage, a ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-4284 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the motor bike from

behind, due to which he fell down from the motor bike and

sustained grievous injuries. Nothing material was elicited from his

cross examination to discredit his evidence. No other evidence is

placed by the insurance company to hold it otherwise. Therefore, it

is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bus driver, but not due to the negligence of the rider

of the motor bike. Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

b) The appellants are disputing the quantum of compensation

i.e., awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the injured-petitioner.

The petitioner who got examined himself as PW1 has asserted that

he was aged 38 years and was working as Supervisor in a Hotel

and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A3 is the MLC issued

by Kamineni Hospital which shows that the petitioner sustained

grievous injury on his right leg. Exs.A5 and A6 are the discharge

summaries issued by the Kamineni Hospital.

c) PW2 is the Doctor of Kamineni Hospital, his evidence reveals

that the petitioner was given inpatient treatment at Kamineni

Hospital, he was admitted on 12.01.2009 and his right leg was

amputated up to hip joint and after amputation, he was discharged ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

on 30.01.2009. Subsequently, on 08.06.2009 the petitioner was

again admitted into their hospital and discharged on 11.06.2009.

In his cross examination it is elicited that he has not treated the

petitioner, but that he is giving evidence as per the record. Exs.A5

and A6 are issued by their hospital. A perusal of Exs.A5 and A6

reveal the said fact with regard to the treatment underwent by

PW1. Since, PW2 is working at Kamineni Hospital as on the date of

his evidence, and deposed on the basis of record, his evidence is

credit worthy and Exs.A5 and A6 can be safely relied upon. These

exhibits further reveal that the petitioner was prescribed with

certain medication at the time of his discharge.

d) Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical bills for a total sum of

Rs.3,25,700/-. PW3 is the Billing Manager of the Kamineni

Hospital and he deposed that Ex.A7 is issued by them. Therefore,

based on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A7, the

medical expenses of Rs.3,25,000/- can be awarded and the same

is awarded by the Tribunal. Further the appellant has disputed

with regard to the percentage of disability and loss of earnings

awarded by the Tribunal. Ex.A8 is the Disability Certificate issued

by the District Medical Board. As per Ex.A8, the percentage of

disability was 90% due to loss of limb and that it is a permanent

disability.

ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

e) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar 1, it has to be scaled down to the whole body and then the

loss of earnings have to be assessed. The Tribunal has assessed

the Loss of Income as 60% and the same appears to be justified as

the petitioner suffered amputation of right leg. He was aged 38

years as per Ex.A8. So the multiplier applicable for 38 years is '15'

which also cannot be disputed. As far as the income of the

petitioner is concerned, he stated that he used to work in a hotel

and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. It is borne out by record

that the petitioner was an able bodied person prior to the accident

and was aged 38 years. Therefore, Rs.6,000/- per month can be

awarded on a reasonable hypothesis. It is the common knowledge

that without a reasonable physical fitness, one cannot attend to

his/her normal work. In the light of the evidence with regard to the

injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent

by him and also taking into consideration the time required for the

injuries to heal, it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work

for at least about six months. Accordingly, a sum of 36000/-

(6000 x 6) is awarded as compensation towards loss of

earnings.

f) Therefore, the assessment made by the Tribunal that the

petitioner was earning Rs.6,000/- and the amount awarded

2011 (10 SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021

towards loss of earning per month appears to be quite reasonable.

Hence, the compensation i.e., granted by the Tribunal is found to

be well justified and does not need any interference. Point No.2 is

answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any

interference and therefore, the same is upheld.

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 23.08.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2010

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda. No costs.