Telanqana State Road Transport Corporation v. tvl- Rajesh

2. For c,tn,,c.1.rce and clarit5z, the parties herein are referred to as they rvcre arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The t:ase of the petitioner is tha_t on 20.12.2013 at about 10:30 a.m., tlLe petitioner boarded an RTC bus bearing No.Ap_29- Z l3O4 in order to go to Afzalgunj and later, the concluctor inlormed the trretitioner that the bus wouid not go to Afzalgunj and on hearing thzrl, the pctitioner requested the conductor to stop the blrs flor gettint] down and the conduc[or informed the same to the drivcr and the clriver of the bus slowed down the bus and while the petitioner rvas trying to get down from the bus carefully, the driver ol the bus has rash and negligently moved the bus at a high speed, lost control ov,rr the bus, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained bleecing injuries to his both legs. That immediately after the acciderrt, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, H1,(erabad lbr treatment and that he incurred huge expenses. He \ I i ! I I 2 MACMA No.42 2021 claims that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver, the RTC is liab1e to pay him a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/ -. 4l The respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the Managing Director/Depot Manager of APSRTC, filed counter afhdavit denying the material averments with regard to the age and earnings of the deceased and they also denied the negligence on part of the bus driver. [l is their contention that the injured has negligently got down the bus and thus sustained injuries.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1 2 Whetlrcr the pleaded accident had ocanned resulting in injuries to the petitioner, M. Rajesh, due to the rosh and negligent driuing of RTC Bus beoing registration No.AP-29-Z- 1304, bg ifs diuer? Whether the petitioner is entitled to onA compensation, if so, at uhdt quantum ond what is the liabilitg of the respondents?

3. To uhat relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to 46. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. I =,rF% 3 ETD,] MACMA No.42 2021

7. Based orL the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensatic,n oI Rs.7,80,440/- Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the grrcsent appeal is filed by the RTC.

8. Hearcl Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. 'lhc learr e d counsel for the appe llant has submitted that the orders of the 'lribut'ral have lo be sct aside as it has erred in au.arding a sum of Rs.7,80,44O/- towards compensation. He further argucd that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and that the Tlibunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner was negligent while getting down the bus and that even in FIR undel Ex.Al, it is mentioned that the injured himself has stated to the Pclice that he got down the bus in a hurried manner. He further arguecl that no independent eye witness was examined to prove the acr;ident and therefore, the RTC is not at all liable to palr any comperrsation. He further argued that there is no proof of income filed by the petitioner and therefore, assessing the income of the petiti,ln(rr as Rs.8,O00/ per month is not proper. He ther\re, praLr-ed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. _l 4 MACMA No.42-20

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a just compensation is awarded by the Tribunal and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. I 1 . Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points lor determinalion:-

1. Whether the accid.ent has not occurred due to the rash and negLigence of the bus diuer ?

2. Whether the compensation atuarded bg the Tibunal is lust and reasonable?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed bg the Tibunal need ang interference? 4- To ulat relieJ?

72. Point No. 1: - a) To prove his case, the petitioner has relied upon Exs'Al to A7. With regard to the occurrence of the accident, it is the contention of the RTC that the petitioner himself got down the bus negligently in a hurried manner, thus fell down and sustained injuries and that there is no negligence of the bus driver' While, it is the contention of the petitioner that while he was getting down the bus, the bus driver moved it at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, thus caused the accident t /_ -rt:_.'t;.-_rr* iF=.t{*ffi= 5 ETD,] MACMA No.42 2021 b) A peruszrl of Ex.A1/FIR reveals that the complainant is the petitioner hr mself and he statcd to the Police that he got down the bus in a hurry,, he fell down from the bus and that the driver of the bus drove thc bus in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the bus ran o\'er his left leg and as a result he sustained grievous injuries. The <:harge sheet under trx.A2 is filed against the bus driver. c) The petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and he reiteratecl tLrt: ,lontenLs of his petition in his chtef cxamination. In his cross e>lanination, nothing could be elicited to disprove the occurrence rf accident. But, for giving a mere suggestion during his cross exaraination that the said bus is not involved in the alleged accicler t, no other question is posed to him to disprove the negligence c,[ thc bus driver. The suggcstion made refers to the involvemenl ol the bus, but here the RTC is not disputing the fact that the petrtic,ner boarded the bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-13O4 and he got dor.r,n Lhe bus. Therefore, the said suggestion itself is unlenable, and the same is denied by the petitioner. The petitioner deposed with regard to the occurrence of the accident stating that the bus drir,er was negligent in moving the bus at a high speed, while he was trying to get down the bus, the same is reflected in E>b.Al and 42. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due a/ 6 I\,4ACMA No.42 2 to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and that there was no negligence of the petitioner' Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly'

13. Point No.2:- d) The petitioner asserted that he was earning Rs 2O,OOO/- per month by doing push cart business of Garlic and Ginger' He got examined PWs 4 and 5. Both these witnesses have stated that they also do such business along with the petitioner and that they are earning more than Rs.25,0OO/- per month. e) PW4 during his cross examination has stated that the petitioner used lo work as a labourer, he also stated that the petitioner used to sell Ginger and Garlic on a push cart' The appellant's contention is that the petitioner failed to prove his avocation and earnings. No proof can be expected in this regard ln Rqmachandrappa Vs. Manage1 Rogal Sundara nt Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedl, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken ln the present case the petitioner is stated to be a labourer and also used to "11'_OtT:' ' ('x1.1] 12 scc 236 - . &*F_. , .!4,.= --- I 1 E]'D,J MACMA No.42 2021 and Garlic cn l push cart. Thus, on a reasonable l-rypothesis, lhe income of ths lretitioner is taken as Rs.8,OOO/- per month. f) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries on both his legs. He Iiled Ex.A3/MLC which shorvs that the pe titioner sust,rined injury over the posterior part of left thigh, abras.ion over the dorsum of left hand and abrasion over the right Ieg, fracture at lor.r.er end of thc femur, he was su!]gested inpatient treatment ald the patienL s.as admirtcd in Osmania General Hospital. Ex A:, is rhe set of medical bills filed by the petitioner. Ex.A6 is thc )l-Ray and Ex.A7 is the inpatient card issued by Osmania General Hospital and it also shows that he was referred to Physio Occupation Theraphy. It is also mentioned in the said exhibit that the petitioner suffered Grade III fracture of shaft femur (left) and thaL external fixation rvas also removed subsequently. Outpatient ti,:kr:t of Osmania General I{ospilal is also filed and this reveals that Lhe patient absconded from the hospital and external fixation follor'"ecL by SSG rvas done torvards his trealment and that he was adviseri Physiotheraphy. Thus, it is revea.led that the petitioner unde -rvent treatment in Osmania General Hospital for his fracture, PL ysiotheraphy was also done in the said hospital. Another pres<rription of prameela Hospital dated 30.06.2015 is also filed, but no I)o.tor is examined to prove his treatment at prameela ( .t ,l 8 MACMA No.42 2 Hospital. PW2 is the Superintendent and Chairman of Medical Board at Kurnool General Hospital, he issued the disability certificate under trx.A4. He deposed that the petitioner sustained 68oh permanent disability and a perusal of Ex.A7 reveals the same' In his cross examination, the PW2 has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner, but has assessed the disability as a member of the Medical Board. trx.A4 issued by the District Medicai Board is admissible in evidence and PW2 asserted the issuance of Ex'A4 and the disability sustained by him is proved to be 68%o. g) Keeping in view thc injuries sustained by him i.e.,2 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries and also the disability sustained by him, the Tribunal has awarded Rs-8O,OOO/ - towards Pain and Suffering and the same appears to be justihed. h) Though the petitioner has hled medical bills, no evidence is adduced in this regard. Though the petitioner underwent treatment in a Governmcnt Hospital, some amount towards extra nourishment, additional medical expenditure, attendant charges etc., cannot be denied to the petitioner. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 10,OO0 f - awarded towards the transportation, treatment, extra nourishment and attendant charges to an extent of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal also is held to be justifred. I I i I I 9 ETD,] MACMA No.42 2021 i) Keepinll in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2 and loss of future earnings have to be assessed. In the present case the extent of disability is 68% as per Ex.A4 (postraumatic sequel left knee stiffness), the same has to be scaled dou,n rr ith regard to lhe n,hole body and then to the loss of earnings. 'I'he Tribunal has assessed the Loss of earning capacity as 30% an<l the same cannot be found fault with. It is revealed from the disability certiflcate filed by him Lhat the petitioner was aged '28' yt:ars. So the multiplier applic:rble for 28 years is ,17, which also czrnnot be disputed. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,85,440/- towards loss of future earnings is assessed. Therefore, t.he compensation i.e., Rs.7,80,440/ - granted by the Tribunal is fcund to be well justilied and does not need any interference . Point No.2 is answered accordrngly against the appellanrs. L4. Point No.3:- In vieu, c,f the discussion held supra, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference and therefore, Lhe same is upheld. Point l\o 3 is answered accordingly 'zorrlroscc:+: I ! ! ! j I I l I l l a 10 MACMA No,42 2

15. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 03.09.2019 in M.V.O.p.No.1082 of 2Ol4 passed by the Motor Accidcnt Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, IVlotor Accidents Claims- Tribunal - Cum -The Court of ' th;Ai;T i;0g., Ciiv ciuiico'rt Hva"'auad( with records' if anv) 2. One CC to SRl. N VASUDEVA REDDY' SC FOR TSRTC'Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies chs yy HIGH COURT DATED:281A312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.42 of 2021 11 0t1 216 ,1i _.;'-'-:.-.i-l DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

6.ofN tr6, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL M ISCELLANEOUS AP EAL NO: 42OF 2021 Between:

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as APSR=|C), Represented by its tvlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, [t/usheerabad, Hyderabad

2. The Depot l/anager, It/ehadipatnam Depot, lVehadipatnam, Hyderabad ...Appellants AND 1 tr4. Ralesh, S/o. tr4. Thirupataiah, Aged 27 yea$, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H. No 13-3-652120, Bheem Nagar. Gopi Hotel, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Petitioner Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,19B8 against the Order and decree in Iv1.V.O.P.No.10 82 OF 2014 dated. 03/09/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims- Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI N VA,SUDEVA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI P CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and NONE APPEARED, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the [\4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal be and hereby dismissed Upholding the order and decree dt 03/09/2019 in M.V.O.P No 1082 of 2104 passed by the ttrlotor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. -=- I I I i i I I l 2- That save as; aloresaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respecls; itnd

3. That there b€ nc order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REP,TRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lVlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum _ Chief Judge, City Civil Court, l.lyclerabad. 2. Two CD Cop,es w HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 \ DECREE MACMA.No.42 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ^snl \ rLoY"'K+: