Telangana High Court
J.Raju vs The Apsrtc And Anr on 24 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2725 of 2016
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.758 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast
Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (for short, 'the
Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.2048 of 2012, dated 27.04.2016, the
petitioner/injured filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2725 of 2016 seeking to
allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and the respondents/RTC in the said M.V.O.P. filed
M.A.C.M.A.No.758 of 2017 seeking to set-aside the order passed by
the learned Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of the
common order passed in M.V.O.P.No.2048 of 2012, they have been
dealt with together and being disposed of by way of this common
judgment.
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 filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
accident that occurred on 11.06.2012. As stated by the petitioner,
on 11.06.2012, when the petitioner was proceeding slowly on his
Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24AL-9760 from
Alair towards Jangaon on the extreme left side of the road and
when reached near Kandigadda Thanda Bus stage on National
Highway No.163, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District, at about 8.10
P.M., the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2121 of
Jangaon depot came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed by overtaking another vehicle and dashed to
the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell
down from his motorcycle and sustained Grade III compound
segmental fracture of both bones of right leg with PTRA, Exposed
Tibia in middle 1/3rd, forehead injury and other injuries all over
the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for treatment and after medical examinations, he
underwent surgery on 19.07.2012 for both bones fracture of right
femur soft skin grafting of PTRA under GA with plate and screws
done, wound closed is layers, ASD done, knee brace applied and
incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and medicine
charges.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that he is aged 20 years and is
working as a private employee and used to earn as sum of
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the said injuries, he became unfit
and unable to move from bed and is still undergoing treatment as
outpatient. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation
against the respondents/RTC.
5. Based on a complaint, Police of Alair Police Station,
Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.67 of 2012 under
Section 337 of IPC.
6. Respondents/RTC filed its counter denying the averments
made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, age,
avocation, earning capacity, medical expenditure incurred,
involvement of driver of crime bus and contended that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in injuries to the petitioner J.Raju, due to
the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle
(APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-29Z-2121)
by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3. To what relief?
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 & 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of
respondents/RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
9. After considering the evidence available on record, the
learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable
by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by
the same, M.A.C.M.A.2725 of 2016 is filed by the
petitioner/injured seeking enhancement of compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.758 of 2017 is filed by Respondents/RTC seeking to
set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi
Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.N.2725 of
2016 and Sri S.Manish, learned counsel representing Sri
R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents/RTC/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.758 of 2017.
11. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/injured
in M.A.C.M.A.No.2725 of 2016 are that the learned Tribunal erred
in considering the income of the petitioner @ Rs.5000/- instead of
Rs.8,000/- as he being Graduate; it also ought to have awarded
future prospects as the injuries sustained by the petitioner are
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
grievous in nature; it also failed to award compensation under the
heads of transportation, loss of marital alliance, physiotherapy
charges and ought to have awarded more interest @ 12% per
annum instead of 9% and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount.
12. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned counsel for
Respondents/RTC/appellants in MACMA.758 of 2017 are that the
learned Tribunal ought to have seen that there was contributory
negligence on part of the injured motorcyclist who hit the rear side
of RTC Bus coming in opposite direction, as such, the owner and
insurer of the motorcycle should be made as necessary parties to
the petition; it also failed to see that there was no independent eye
witness to corroborate the contents of Ex.A2-charge sheet, as such,
the charge sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence
on part of RTC driver; it also ought to have considered the income
of the petitioner @ Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- and also erred
in assessing the multiplier in the absence of age proof and also
awarded excess interest @ 9% per annum and therefore requested
to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal by allowing the
Appeal.
13. Now the point that emerge for consideration is,
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the appellant/injured in MACMA.2725 of 2016
is entitled for enhancement of compensation?
Points:-
14. Since one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for appellant/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.758 of 2017 is regarding
contributory negligence on part of the injured motorcyclist, this
Court is inclined to look into the said aspect for arriving at a
correct finding.
15. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR clearly discloses that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus
bearing No.Ap-29-Z-2121 and the petitioner/injured sustained
severe injuries to his legs and other parts. Police of Alair Police
Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.67/2012,
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of
alleged RTC Bus.
16. Though learned Standing Counsel representing
appellant/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.758 of 2017 contended that the
charge sheet cannot be taken into consideration as there was no
independent eye witness to corroborate its contents, however it
failed to adduce any evidence challenging the said charge sheet.
Since charge sheet/final report can be a significant factor in
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
determining negligence in a claim for compensation, the learned
Tribunal found negligence on part of the driver of subject RTC bus
based on the said charge sheet. As there was contributory
negligence on part of the driver of crime RTC bus, the question of
making the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary
parties to the claim petition, does not arise. Hence the contention
of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant/RTC in this regard
remains unsustainable.
17. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellant/RTC in MACMA.758 of 2017 is with regard to quantum
of compensation. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal
erred in taking the income of the petitioner on higher side without
any documentary proof.
18. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned counsel for
appellants/claimants in MACMA.2725 of 2016 are that the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the petitioner @
Rs.8,000/- as the petitioner being a pursing Graduate and ought
to have awarded future prospects on the established income and
ought to have awarded more compensation.
19. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, in the absence of
documentary proof showing the income of the petitioner, fixed his
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
income @ Rs.5,000/- per month, considered the percentage of
disability sustained by the petitioner under Ex.A7, applied
multiplier 18 by considering the age of the petitioner as mentioned
in Ex.A7-Disability Certificate and calculated loss of future
earnings on account of disability as under:-
Loss of future earnings on
account of disability = monthly income x 12 x percentage of
disability x multiplier.
= Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 44% x 18
= Rs.4,75,200/-
20. A perusal of the above calculation shows that the learned
Tribunal, considering the date of accident, percentage of disability
and educational qualification of the petitioner, has rightly
calculated loss of future earnings on account of disability and there
is no error crept in to delve into the same. Hence, this Court do
not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the
Tribunal as it is in proper perspective.
21. As far as future prospects are concerned, since the petitioner
sustained disability @ 44% to his right lower limb and not the
whole body, this Court is not inclined to award future prospects to
the income of the petitioner. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
emphasized that compensation for future prospects should be
considered in cases of permanent disablement or diminished
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
earning capacity due to injuries. In the instant case, as the
petitioner is working as supervisor and there is no manual work
done by him, he can continue his work by giving necessary
instructions to the concerned without any obstruction.
22. Apart from awarding loss of earnings on account of
disability, the learned Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering
and mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment,
travelling and attendant charges, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of earnings
and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. This Court
finds the said amounts to be reasonable and is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
23. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded
excess interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount.
This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, reduces the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per
annum.
24. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2725 of 2016 filed by the
appellant/claimant is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.758 of 2017
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
filed by RTC is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% p.a. Except the said
finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects
shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.24.03.2025
ysk
MGP,J
Macma Nos.2725 of 2016 &758 of 2017
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
AND
Dt.24.03.2025
ysk
