Telangana High Court

Apsrtc Rep. By Its Managing Director, vs S. Suryanarayana Murthy on 2 May, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.384 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

Decree dated 11.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1726 of 2015 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

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

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

02.06.2015, while the petitioner was proceeding in an APSRTC Bus

bearing No.AP-02Z-0281 from Hyderabad towards Tadipatri and

when the bus reached near Komireddypally Village limits, the

driver of the said bus has driven it in a rash and negligent manner

at a high speed and thereby lost control over the vehicle, and thus

the bus turned turtle, due to which the petitioner received grievous

injuries and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital,

Addakala and later on to Sun Shine Hospital and that he incurred

an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, he claimed a

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, the age, occupation and income of petitioner. They

further contended that the bus driver was going cautiously, but at

that time two Volvo Buses over took the said vehicle and the

second vehicle took a left cut to avoid collusion with opposite

vehicle and on observing the same, the bus driver has applied

sudden break and took the bus to his extreme left to prevent major

accident and thus, the bus went into contact with the stones and

turned turtle and that their driver was not negligent in causing the

accident.

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

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S. Suryanarayana Murthy, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-

02Z-0281, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A8, X1 and X2. On behalf of the

respondents, no evidence was adduced.

ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

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

compensation of Rs.3,08,157/- @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the

said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the APSRTC.

8. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant counsel has submitted

that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and

that they have granted excess amounts and the learned Tribunal

failed to observe that the accident occurred in 2015, while

petitioner says that he has taken treatment in 2017 after being

silent for two years. Thus, the case of the petitioner is false and

that he incurred huge medical expenses and therefore, the

Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, but has

awarded exorbitant compensation. He therefore, prayed to set

aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that the petitioner was a passenger in the bus and in his

claim petition itself, he has clearly mentioned that he is a poor

person and when he was immediately shifted to the hospital, on

coming to know about the estimated medical expenses, he could

not afford to undergo treatment and thus, he was confined to bed

at home and after pulling up his resources, he underwent ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

treatment in the year 2017. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded

the compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same.

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

points for determination:-

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-02Z- 0281?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

4. To what relief?

12. Point No.1:

a) PW1 is the injured-petitioner; his evidence reveals that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the RTC Bus

driver in which he was travelling as a passenger. Nothing much

could be elicited during his cross examination to discredit his

evidence with regard to the occurrence of the accident.

b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and the charge sheet under

Ex.A3 reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the RTC Bus driver. The contents of the charge

sheet reveal that the driver of the RTC Bus has driven the bus at a

high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control on the bus

and that the bus turned turtle. Therefore, based on the oral

evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and A3, it is held that the ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of RTC Bus.

Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:-

a) The case of PW1 is that he sustained fracture of right hip,

fracture of knee joint and blunt injury on left hand as a result of

the accident, that he was working as Manager in Viscot Surgical

Private Limited, he was aged 67 years and was earning more than

Rs.20,000/- per month and that he was hale and healthy prior to

the accident. He got examined PW3 and PW4 to prove the injuries

and the treatment.

b) PW3/Dr. G. Vijay Kumar is an Orthopaedic Consultant, his

evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained injury in the right

hip joint, while he was travelling in RTC Bus on 02.06.2015 at

about 12:30 a.m., and that he was taken to the Government

Hospital initially, but he was advised to go to Sun Shine Hospital.

As he was supposed to undergo major surgeries, Sun Shine

Hospital gave an estimation of Rs.3,50,000/- which he could not

afford at that time. Thus, he continued to remain at home for more

than one and half years and he approached PW3 in April, 2017,

whereby he was admitted at Aditya Hospital, Boggulakunta and ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

that he was diagnosed for a grossly comminuted neglected fracture

with non-union troshanture on 12.04.2017 and that the PW1

underwent surgery on 19.04.2017 and was discharged on

24.04.2017 with an advise for follow up treatment at regular

intervals. He also has spoken with regard to the disability saying

that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability which is

permanent in nature. Mere suggestions were given to him during

cross examination which were denied by him and nothing material

could be elicited to discredit his evidence.

c) PW4 is the Billing Manager of Aditya Hospital and his

evidence reveals that the petitioner incurred medical expenses of

Rs.2,35,157/-. He further deposed that Ex.A6/medical bill was

issued by their hospital. A perusal of Ex.A2/Wound Certificate

dated 02.06.2015 issued by the Medical Officer of Mahaboobnagar

District, shows that there were two abrasions and that the patient

was referred to OGH, Hyderabad. The check out slip under Ex.A5

pertaining to Sun Shine Hospital reveals that the petitioner was

kept in the Casuality Ward, Department of Orthopaedics and was

discharged on 02.06.2015. Ex.A6 is the outpatient card of Sun

Shine Hospital and the Registration date is shown as 02.06.2015

i.e., the date of the accident. He was diagnosed with fracture of

right femur neck. A bunch of medical bills are filed under Ex.A5 ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

pertaining to Sun Shine Hospital and it also reveals that the

patient was discharged on the same day i.e., on 02.06.2015. Thus,

it is revealed from the record that initially he was taken to

Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where after first aid, he was

referred to Osmania General Hospital, but the petitioner visited

Sun Shine Hospital, where he was diagnosed with fracture of right

femur, but he got discharged on the same day without taking any

treatment. This probabilizes the case of the petitioner that he could

not afford for the medical expenditure at that point of time and

thus, he returned home and after accumulating funds, he again

approached Aditya Hospital for treatment. Ex.A4 is the Discharge

Summary issued by the Aditya Hospital, which reveals that the

petitioner underwent inpatient treatment from 12.04.2017 to

24.04.2017 for non-union comminuted fracture.

d) A perusal of medical bills under Ex.A5 shows that he paid a

total bill of Rs.2,35,157/- at Aditya Hospital apart from incurring

other medical expenses for purchase of medicines which are filed

as a bunch under Ex.A5. The contention of the appellant counsel

that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding medical expenses of

Rs.2,35,157/- appears to be untenable, in view of the medical bills

filed under Ex.A5.

ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

e) For pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.25,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable.

f) The appellant's further contention is that the salary of the

petitioner is believed as Rs.16,000/- by the Tribunal and it went

ahead in awarding loss of salary for three months which is

calculated as Rs.48,000/-. To prove the salary of the petitioner, he

filed Ex.A7 issued by Viscot Surgical. It is the contention of the

petitioner that he used to work as a Manager in Viscot Surgical

and used to earn Rs.16,000/- per month.

g) To prove Ex.A7, the petitioner got examined PW2. The

evidence of PW2 reveals that the petitioner was working with them

as a Manager and that they used to pay Rs.16,000/- per month as

a salary. The Ex.X1 and X2 are filed in his evidence. Ex.X1 is the

Attested Copy of Attendance Register of their Company and X2 is

the Attested Copies of payment vouchers. Further, he asserted that

PW2 has issued Ex.A7 and a suggestion was given to him in cross

examination saying that the petitioner being senior citizen was not

supposed to be offered employment in their company, which was

denied by him. But it is a Private Company as deposed by PW2 and

the Letter Head of Ex.A7 also shows that it is Viscot Surgical

Private Limited and the documents under Ex.X1, X2 and A7 prove

the earnings of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- per month. Thus, the ETD,J MACMA No.384_2021

Tribunal has assessed loss of earnings for three months and

granted Rs.48,000/- which is also not found fault with. Thus, it is

opined that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, there is no

need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the

same is upheld.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 11.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1726 of 2015 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs.