The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE }{AEBINE RAO I{ANDIKOITDA M.A.C.M.A.No .266 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by appellant/ A.P.S.R.T.C. (now T.S.R.T.C.) questioning the grant of claim by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No'640 of 2OL4, dated' l2-Og-2olg on the file the Chairmal, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to TribunalJ mainly on the ground that quantum of compensation is excesslve

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case' are that claimant - respondent No.1 herein earlier frled M.V.O.P.No'64O of 2O14 under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988) seeking compensation of Rs.15,OO,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident, which took place on 06.02'20ll' NNR,J MAON[A.N >.256 of 2O20 4

4. Ot ?,6-02-2011 at about 21.OO hor-rrs when the petitione::/ injured boarded the RTC bur,i bearing No.AlLl.l-L1,-6456, route 49-M. The driver startt:d the bus in ra.sh and negligent manner, due to the which petitioner tbll on the road and RTC bus .whee ran over her leg. Crre to which she sustained following injuries uz., 1) ClnLsh arrd degloving injury left thigh, 2) Crush and deghring injury left foot, 3) Fracture of llirst Med Tarsa-l Bcln,:, 4) Amputation of left great toe. Immediately she was r:hifted to Gandhi Hospital in 108 ambrrlance for necessaq/ lreatment. Where she obtaine:d first aid from there she rvas shifted and admitted in Apollo Hospital, Jubliee l.Ulls, where she was treated a_ncl u nderwent. surgery a:rl 3k wire fixation to left hrst me.tati,rsal was done, lSk.irr 11raft was done. She was under treratn rent from O7.O2.2(.t11 to l9.O2.2OlI as in-patient and she was discharge,:l on 25.O4.2O1 l. For the said 1_reatrnent stre incurred i,.rr amount of Rs.7,5O,OOO/- towarcls t:eatment and med i<: nes and extra nourishmenl_ etc. police NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 5 registered a case under Section 337 of IPC against the Driver of RTC bus i.e., respondent No.2 and after investigation, it is found that the said accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, as such, she claimed an amount of Rs.15,O0,OOO/- towards compensation under various heads.

5. Respondent No.l - driver did not chose to frle any counter and he was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 corporation has filed counter opposing the relief claimed It also denied the allegations made by the claimant, manner of accident, age and income of the claimant and also the disability. Respondent No.2 - corporation also denied the rash and negligent driving of driver of bus. It is further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant - injured is excessive.

6. Basing on the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: NNR,J MACI{.a.No ).56 of 2O2O 6

1. Whe'fier the accident was occurred due to rash and neg,ligent driving of the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus N:o.AP-11-Z-6456?

2. lVhetlrer the peUtioner is entitled fcrr ccmpensation as pr.\yed for and against whom?

3. To 'w-hrit relieP

7. After goi.ng into the merits of the oas(, leaned Tribun aj tuls came to the conclusion that the said accident ,L zrs occurred due to the rastr attd negligent driving of r:spondent No.1 - driver of RTC bus. [;iasing on the ora,l an'l documentary evidence availab [e cn record and conisictering the pleas made by bc,ttr the parties, learnecl 'fri:unal, partly allowed the petititn and awarded compensa:jon of Rs.6,51,5281- to the claimaLnt - injured along rvith :roportionate costs (@9o/o per allnum.

8. Bein5l aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by respondent No.2 - corporation on the follorvi o51 grounds: That tlLere is no negligence on the part of the driver and the sa.ic. accident occurred because of the n,:gligence NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 7 on the part of the claimant herself as she tried to board the running bus and fell down on her own and sustained injuries, which the learned Tribunal did not consider the sarne. Claimants could not place any evidence to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of RTC i.e., respondent No.1 and that without there being any evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of future earnings and for permanent disability and also erred in awarding interest @ 9o/o pet annum

9. Heard Ms.Bhavishya Amagoni, learned counsel representing Sri N. Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC and Sri Ch. Venkat Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri K.S. Murttqr, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - claimant. 1(). Perused the entire material placed on record and the record submitted by the learned Tribunal. T NNR,J MA,l\lA.No.t 156 of 2O2O 8

11. Leanred Standing Counsel would ct>nttnd that learned 'lribunal awarded compensation uncler the head 'permanr:r:t disability' without any basis :rnd without there beirrg any Disability Certilicate, assurring the disabili!,' at 4Oo/" purely basing on the <triel evrdence of injured. ':[aimant. He would also contereC thar learned Tribunal lid not consider the age of tht: p,rtitioner, though slLr: was aged about 6O years al. the time of accident, llhere is no negligence on the p;ert cf the driver of bus.

12. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the claimant 7 respondent No.1 herein :;uppor-ing the judgment cassed by the learned Tribunal u'ould contend that the T'rjbunal after considering the er:Ltire tral and documenteu.r evidence available on record and also the evidenc:e r:,1 PW-2, who treated the injured - :laimant grantecl r::<lrn.pensation and there is no n,led to interfere with the r;erne NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 9 I3. Now the points which are under coRsideration afe:

1. Whether the Tribunal was compensation? And rn awarding the

2. Whether the said Award is liable to be set aside? If so, 3. To what relieP Point Nos.I annd,2: 14. There is no dispute with regard to the incident / accident and the injuries received by the claimant. Respondent No.2 - corporation contended that there is no negligence on the part of Driver of the bus and there is negligence on the part of claimant - injured.

15. As seen from the record, claimant injured exafirined herself as PW-l. She deposed that when she was about to board the bus near Secunderabad bus stand to go to Mehadipatnam, suddenly the respondent N'o.l (driver) of bus bearing No.AP-11-2-6456, roite No.49 started the bus without taking any precautions in rash and negligent manner, due to the which she has fell on the road arrd bus wheel ran over her leg, due to which her leg's skin was peeled out and she received the injuries. On lodging of a complaint by her son, Police, ,. .n--..i :. NNR,J MACIvIr..No. 256 0f 2020 10 Gopalapuram, registered a crime under Section 337 of IPC anct iafter examining LWs.1 to 4 the concerned Investigat urg OfEcer came to the conclusion tha. the said accident c<r:urred due to the rash ald negligt:nt lriving of the driver of the said bus and he was cha.rge 1 for the offence pr. nishable under Section 337 of IPC-

16. Crn f,r:r-usal of cross-examination it :learly indicates that ther:e is no denial about the involvemer:t ol the said bus, in the accident, which was driven tt1 re;pondent No.1 - d.river. Therefore, considering the enlire evidence ol PW-l, locuments and the charge stLeet rnd also considerir:51 the injuries sustained by tl-re retitioner, it clearly go(:s to show that the said accident occu:red only due to the rash and negligent driving of dri.zer of the bus. As su<:h, the contention of the appellant/ Re;pondent No.2 - cr:rp,oration that there is no negligence on the part of the rlriver of the bus cannot be accepte<l. NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O

17. Burden lies on the appellant to prove the neglig€nce on the part of injured - claimant. Except denSring negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 and imposing negligence on the part of the claimant ttrere is no rebuttal evidence is placed to show that the said aecident was occurred due to the negligence of claimant - injured. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the findings of learned Tribunal cannot be found fault and nothing has been placed before this Court to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal in respect of negligence on the part of the Driver of the RTC bus.

18. The other aspect which the learned counsel would contend that the compensation amount of Rs.6,51,528/- awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant.

19. The claimant injured claimed the following amounts totalling to Rs. 15,00,0O0/- towards compensation under different heads as under: T SPECIAL DAMAGES rtation to hos ital Loss oi e Partie] loss of earnin Trans Extra. - n ourishment Dama Hrt 9pl tal bills s to clothings and articles NNR,J MA(IMA No.. 56 of 2O20 Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs .10 .50 .50 .80 .7 I ,n 000 000 000 000 0,000 000 GENERAL DAMAGES C(44r!',.lrsation for ain and sufferin Compensation for continuing and Rs.2,C'0,000/- errnirnent disability Compe'nsation for mental agony and Rs.50 OO0/- su ffel i n clL Compe'nsation for loss of earning Rs.1,C'0,000/- owet si Rs.1,Cr0,00O a b c d e t a b c d

20. Lt:an-e,l Tribunal awarded compensati<)rr as follows: a b C d e I h Lc sr,; o.- luture earnings Tl4l],lr,(rrtation to hospital Ac:conmodation E>:tra ':rourishment Pain i:urd suffering Pe rrn;r.r ent disability !:!llf l!l f artilicial toe F C ersh pi ven by claimant T()T'A L Rs.64 B0O Rs.24 00O Rs.10 O0O Rs.5O,OOO Rs.1,CO,00O Rs.2,CO,OOO Rs.2,0 O,OOO R.s.27i)8 51 R.s.6, J

21. Tlre main grievanc-eof ttrrappellant ,/ ilc,rporation is that u,rth,rr- t there being any DisabiliQr Certificate, learned 'l'r-ibunal has quantified / asses" ed her NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 13 pennanent disability at 4Oo/o. Claimant did not place any evidence to show that she sustained 40% disability and there is no proof for the same.

22. Penrsal of the record a_lso shows that besides examining claimant / injured herself as pW-l, she also examined PW-2 - Doctor, who treated for the injuries sustained by her. Ex.A-9 is the discharge summary issued by the hospital. In the evidence of pW-2 - Doctor and also in Ex.A-9 nothing was eiicited to show that claimant - injured has received 4Oo/o disability, which reads as follows: *Pul J. Shankaramma u)as admitted on O7/O2/2O11 in Apollo Hospital in Hgderabad. I am uorking as Plastic Surgeon since last 21 gears in Apollo Hgderabad. She LUas admitted following injuies. 1) Crush and Deglouing injury of lefi thigh. 2) Crush and Deglouing injury ouer dorsum of lefi foot. 3) Fracture of ftrst metatarsal bone of left foot. 4) Total Traumatic Amputation of lefi great toe at pip joint leuel. ..;r .. t.;rr-. .--:! 1 NNR,J MAillvlA.No..l56 of 2O2O 74 Along r.t'ith the following doctors u)ere also inuolued in her treo.tment. 1) Dr. Pramathi R'edd'g 2) Dr' Ramttc:hondra Murthg 3) Dr. Balauardhar'' Rtddy 4) Dr Nara'1ana Reddg. Sh.e u)as operated twicb, ones on 8i02,r2A11 and on othzr day 01/04/2O11. On O8/0:2/2Ol I under generat.l. anesthesia with oral .ET'I', Wound d eLtirL.e,lrcnt + Kollagen application frachue o-i' lateral condyle- cf left tibia + 3 k wire fixatiort to lef" first + OR.[F t.,J'metatarsal was done. On 11/:?l 20'7 skin grqfnin,T LUas done. She u)as disct''arged on 19t a2,/2'01 1. Again strc u)as adrnitted on o1i 04,/ 2'01 1. On i )./04/2011 skin grafiing utas clone- S'rc uas d-isct,ra",7ed on 18/ 04/ 2O11. She will hrzue permanent difllcrtltl in u.talking due to lose of great toe At the time o.f ,iischarge on 18/04/2O17 she uas ad ised to take. on: month bed rest. EX A9 (dischorytre summary) ,t ,t-r,u,,-.,' from our hospital." 23 . I- is aiso evident from Ex.A-9 discharge summary aboul. thr: said fractures / injuries sustainerl by the NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 15 claimant in the accident. But, there is no whispe r of 4O%o disability in Ex.A-9 - Discharge Summar5r.

24. But, in the present case, except the oral contention of PW-1 (petitioner) that she suffered 40% disability there is no documentarJr proof. No doubt as per Section 142 of the Act, permanent disability reads as follows: "For th.e putposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to haue resulted from an accident of the nature refened te in sub-section (1) of section 140 if such person lla,s atffered bg reason of the accident, ang injury or injuies inuoluing-

7.permanent priuation of the sight of either eye or the heaing of either ear, or piuation of any member or joint; or

2.destruction or perrnanent impairing of the pouers of ang member or joint; or

3.permanent di.sfiguration of the head orface."

25. Though Section 92-C of the Act, 1988 provides for what amounts to permanent disablement, which reads as follows: NNR,J MA,llvl-A.No.: | 56 of 2O2O 16 "g:r.C tr'(\Tnqnents disablement: For the purposes tf this Chapt<:r penndnent disablement of a p<trsort sl tall be deemetl to haue resulted from an acctdent of the nature referred :o in sub-section (1) of secfion 92A iJ'such person ho.s :;:u-'l-e red bg reason of the accident ang inju41 or njuies iru,oluirtq -lgltermanent piuation of the sight oJ'eithei ege or joint; the h.er:.li"tg of either ear, or piuation of ang nember '>r or(b-1t:le: struction or perrnanent impairing of the potlers of anq ntember or joint; orlg)permanent disfiryration of the hearl o, I tce."

26. Thor. 11h if the injury sustained by the petitroner i'e', Ampular:ion of left great toe arnounts to physical disabilifrr, b,ut so as to assess the functional disability and also '::o:nputation of permanent disability alld loss of earninq pcwer. The law requires that the percrlntage of disabilil.rz tlrs to be assessed by a Doctor that too by a Doctor's of 'Medical Board or by the Doctor who .reats the injure<1

27. In tlr: present case, there is no eviden( )e of the assessmerlt of percentage of disability-was plac'3d, so as to assr:ss llte functional disability and coming [o assess the lor;s ,:rl' frtture earnings and losS du.e t,l pilfinanent NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 17 disability, more over, this Court is of the opinion that when there is no proof of percentage of disability the learned Tribunat cannot step into the shoes of an Expert and assess the percentage of disability, generally which is done by the expert of Medical Board, that is basing on certain parameters and the required rules and following the guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities, which the learned Tribunal is not empowered to assess the percentage, which is not in the domain of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the learned Tribunal considering the percentage stated by the petitioner without any support of medical or expert evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence, the same cannot be made basis to assess he computation under the Head of loss of future earnings and loss of permanent disability.

24. On perusal of the entire evidence of PWs.1 and 2 it is evident with regard to treatment being obtained by PW- 1 in Apollo Hospital. The evidence of PW-2 speaks about the Fixing of artificial toe to the claimant / NNR,J MA']N[A.No.l )56 of 2O2O 18 petitioner a.nd PW-3 has confined about ltrxs C-1 and C-2/ Final Bills. Except a bear suggestion th.at lletitioner will not h,ave any pennanent disability in walkirrg due to lose of great toe, which he denied about tlre same' Admitter:11'1, the entire medical record would sreow that PW-1 u,'a.s received the injuries viz., 1) Crrrsh and degloving injury left thigh, 2) Crush and degloving injury left foot, :'i) Fracture of First Med T'arsal Bone, 4l Amput.atio:.t of left great toe. Though PW-2 in his evidence has spec:fically stated about the injuries received by petitioner - claimant and also spoke abotrt dif'[rcult5i in walking duc to loss of great toe but, he has not croduced any Me<lir:rri Certihcate in proof of the sanre' Er<cept the oral er.icl.en<:e of PWs. I and 2 nothing is placed r)n record to show ttult petitioner / clamant sustainetl prl)rmanent disabiiit'g cl 4Oo/o

29. A.s r'.g-rtly contended by learned counsel z'Lppearing appellarrt that there is no proof placed by' the cl'rimant to Show 1.hrrt she has sustained permanent rlisability of 4Ooh NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O t9 and on perusal of the frndings of tJre lean:ed Tribunal in page No.14 at paragraph No.21, it shows tJrat petitioner has sustained permanent disability of 4Oo/o, wherein learned Tribunal gave a finding stating that PW-2 is a plastic surgeon, who treated PW-1 specilically stating that claimanL sustained permanent diffierrlty in walking due to loss of great toe. Except the same, there is no evidence to show that claimant received permanent disability of 4Oo/o. In respect of the same, let us see the law laid down in respect of proof of disability and giving of compensation.

30. I do agree that as per tJre judgment of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court cited in S.S. Dhanoa us tlnion Of India And Orsl and Mohsn Soni us Ram Autqr Tomar & Ors2, there is no dispute that Section 92(cl of the Act says about lermanent disability'. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of future earnings on the assumption that the petitioner suffered 4Oo/o of disability. ' tgg t scc a2+ 2 20t2 12) SCC 267 NNR,J Ml'CMr\.No 256 of 2O2O 20 The correlation between the physical disabitity suffered in an accidenl at the loss of earning capacity resu.ting from it, whict was discussed in RAJ KUMAR as. AJAY KUMAR (k, AirR3 and Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Orsa.

31. In vie rv of the aforesaid discussion an,l tlLe settled law, this (lourt is of the considered vieu' tha: learned Tribun.al rvrongly came to the conclusion thzLt craimant - injurerl srrstained permanent disability of ,lOo/, without any b::Lsirs. Therefore, compensation amrrunt of Rs.2,00,(loil/- awarded under the head of 'pr,rmanent disabilitl,' i,s disallowed. In absence of any proof r egarding sustainint of permanent disabilibr ;rwarding compensa:ion amount of Rs.64,8OO/- trndt:r the head toss of fu:trrre earnings' does not arise. Tlrere fore, the same is a.sro disallowed. In respect of ot,lrer herLds, I do not see arL.l ground to interfere with the sarrre. T?re modified a.orount of compensation is as follows: 3 2O11 (1) S;CC 343 4 ArR 2003 SC: 6 /.r NNR,J MACMA.No.256 of 2O2O 2l Awarded bY ttre Tribunal Rs.64,800/- Awarded by this Court. Rs.24,O0O/- Rs.1O,O00/- Rs.5o,Oo0/- Rs.24,0OO/- Rs.1O,OO0/- Rs.50,0OO/- Rs. 1,0O,OO0/- Rs.1,0O,0O0/- HEAD Transportation hos tal Accommodation future Extra-nourishment Pain and suffering of artificial toe Permanent disabili Fixin Cash given claimant TOTAL Rs.2 00,000 Rs.2,O0 000 Rs.272a/- Rs.6,51,528 Rs.2 00 000 Rs.2728/- Rs.3 86 72al- a. b c d e f h \ -\ 3l2. Accordingly, this M.A'C'M'A' is partly allowed modi[.ing the compensation, which the petitioner will be entitled, and as per the interim orders of this Court respondent No. 1 / appellant / Insurance Company has deposited 5O% of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondent is entitled recover the amount, if any, received by the petitioner in excess of the awarded / modified compensation' In respect -of amounts, awarded under other heads the same will be intact and the interest aspect petitioner will be entitled NNR,J IUACII{A. N ).256 of 2O2O 22 for the i::rterest from the date of petition til.. rerrlization of arry amotrnt due. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are penrling, shall stancl clos;ed. //TRUE COPY// $D/. MOHD. ISMATL )\ DEtsUTY REGISTRAR SEcTION OFFICER One Fair Cop To, y tc the Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao iflndikonrja (For His Lordship kind perusat) Affairs, Nevr Delhi

1. The chaimran, Motor Accident craims Tribunar cum r Ad(iitior ar District ^ Judg_e, Xarimnagar (with records if any) 2. ll LRCopies 3. The.Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, JLrstice z.nd Company 4. The Secretary., Advocates Association Library, High (lour: for he State of _ Telan_gana, iigh Court Buildings at Hyderabad. " 5. One CC to lSri Chandra SekhaiN., Advocate [OpUC. 6. One CC to tiri K.S. Murthy, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CD Oocies Plp/DL w HIGH COIJRT DATED:12010212025 L.R. COPY TI] BE MARKED (2 drafts) JUDGMENT MAGMA.I\o.256 of 2020 1nCl ( c 30 t- .J r I l,-: ,. PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA. &"5 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A-C.M.A. NO:256 oF 2020 Between: APSRTC., (NOW TSRTC), Vice Chairman and Managing Direct'or, Owner of the Crime Vehicle No. API 1-2-6456, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPON DENT.2 AND

1. Jangirala Shankaramma, Wo. J. Ramaiah, Age 65 years, Occ. House Wife, Ryo. H.No. 1-1-115, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial, Pin- 504208, now residing at H.No. 3-7-503, Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar town and District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2- Md. Abdul Samad, S/o. Md. Abdul Jabbar, Age 54 years, Occ. Driver, APSRTC, RJo. H.No. 19-1 -1 084/35, Bahudurpura, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No'1 (R2- is formal party, not a necessary party) Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 12 Og.2o1g passed in MVOP No. 64O of 2O14 on the file of the chairman. Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Ms Bhavishya Amagofli Representing Sri N' Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Ch Venkat Narayana Representing Sri K.S. Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No 1' -7 his Court doth ti)rrler and Decree as follows

1. That the f\4rtor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be anJ hereby is partly allowed mocifying the compensation, which the pelitioner wlll be entitled, and as per th(: irterim orders of this Court respondent No.1/alipellanUlnsurance Comp,spy I rrs deposited 50% of the compensation awardt,'d by the learned Triburtal;

2. That the r€ r pondent be and hereby is entitled r€,cover thr) amount, if any, receivec :))' the petitioner in excess of the awarded/modifi,,:d compensation;

3. That "n -€,s lect of other amounts, awarded under other heilds the same will be intacl i, r (l the interest aspect petitioner will be entitled fo' the interest from the date c,' :etition till realization of any amount due. //TRUE COPY// SDL MOHD. ISMAIL \DqPUTY REGTSTRAR I $rcnoru oFFrcER To, 'l . The Chairrrzrn, lrilotor Accident Claims Tribunal cunr lAdditicnal District ) Judge-, Ka'irrnagar

2. Two OD C)o6 res w HIGH COURT DATED:2,010212025 L.R. COPY'I'O BE MARKED (2 drafts) DECREE: MACMA.No.256 of 2020 PARTL)/ ALLOWING THE MACMA. U,rP("X' \1t .:t1[: .)