ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT v. APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

Aggrieved by order 25.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.152 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Special Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, the present appeal is preferred by A.P.S.R.T.C questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, apart from raising other grounds.

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were mentioned in the claim petition.

The petitioner claims that he was employee in Sakshi Newspaper and was earning around Rs.15,000/- per month and same was being contributed to welfare of his family. It was further case of the petitioner that on 31.07.2017 the petitioner along with his friend Sri Naga Malleswara Rao was proceeding to Vijayawada on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 16 DE 3029, when they reached near R.T.C bus stand, Pamarru, the offending bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 7485 driven by the respondent No.1 at 4 TCDS,J MACMA_231_2020 high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from his behind. As a result of which the petitioner and his friend Naga Malleswara Rao fell on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam treatment. A case in Cr.No.89 of 2017 under section 337 Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) was registered against the respondent No.1 and after investigating into the same, charge sheet was filed on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada. It was further case of the petitioner that he was shifted to Gana Sri Sai Orthopedic Hospital, Machilipatnam, where it was found that he received fracture injuries to his left hand both bones. A surgery was conducted to the petitioner and medical implants were inserted. The petitioner further states that he spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and after discharge from the hospital, he had also taken follow up treatment as outpatient. In view of the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to drive motor cycle and facing difficulties while lifting weights, apart from attending day to day activities. He also took physiotherapy 5 TCDS,J MACMA_231_2020 for the injuries sustained by him. In view of the injuries, he approached the Tribunal by filing claim petition under section 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents.

The respondent No.1/driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit inter alia denying the manner in which the accident was stated to have occurred. It was further averred the counter affidavit the petitioner was responsible for the occurrence of accident in as much as, he drove the motor cycle in zigzag manner without following the traffic rules and suddenly crossed the road in confused state of mind, thereby, the accident happened and the pillion rider fell down on the road. It was further contended compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive. With the above pleadings the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW1 and doctors who treated him were examined as PW’s 2 & 3. He also marked document in Exhibit A1 to A4. 6 TCDS,J MACMA_231_2020 Exhibit X1 to X3 were marked through PW.1. On the other hand the respondent have neither examined any witnesses nor marked documentary evidence. After enquiry, the Tribunal by impugned order had partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the same the appellant preferred the present appeal.

Heard, Sri Penumaka Venkat Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.K Venkatesh learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. As per the cause title the respondent No.2 is mentioned as not necessary party. Perused the material available on record.

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. In order to prove the same, the appellant/respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the claimant has filed copies of F.I.R and Charge sheet which were marked as Exhibit A1 & A4. A perusal of these documents would show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the respondent 7 TCDS,J MACMA_231_2020 No.1. In the circumstances, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the respondent No.1/Driver of the R.T.C bus, accordingly this issue is answered in favor of the claimant.

Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, though the petitioner had stated before the Tribunal that, he was working in Sakshi Newspaper and was earning of Rs.15,000/- per month, nothing is placed on record to substantiate his claim. In those circumstances, the Tribunal had taken the income of the petitioner notionally as Rs.200/- per day and accordingly computed the compensation that was entitled by him. The claimant also filed document which was marked as Exhibit A2 wound certificate dated 17.08.2017 issued by Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. Apart from the same, the petitioner also got examined doctors who treated him as PW.2 & PW.3. The perusal of the evidence of PW.3 would establish that, he conducted surgery to the petitioner and inserted medical implants during the same. PW.3 further deposed that the petitioner was suffered with fracture and for removal of the implants, he is required to undergo another 8 TCDS,J MACMA_231_2020 surgery for which he has incur some amount. By appreciating the evidence on record the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that the same was excessive, a perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal would clearly establish the petitioner has incurred considerable amount of money towards treatment and surgery.