The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is lileci bl TaR.l.C, aggrLevcrl b,r. thc Ordcr and l)ccre c derLed 13. I ] .20 l9 in M.V.O.P.No.76 ol 2O I g lrassed bl t],re Mc.rLor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_XXVII Acldrtional Chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad (for short,.the 1.ribunar,,). ).

For convenience and clarity, the parties herejn are relerrecl tcr as they u,ere arrayed bcfore Lhe Tribunal. 3 'l'hc case of the pctitioncrs bcr.re thc Tribunar uits that orl 19.O(a.2O17 art abour 09:4S hours, urhile the perrtioner was standing to board the bus, the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.Ap 292 2548 acar (iorderr cafe, Tadburr-rc.r X Road, -accundcrabacl, clrovc the same in rash and negligenl manner at a hrgl_r spced and dashed the petitioner, due to u,hich the petitioner i.ell dou.n and sustained grievous liacture injuries all over the bocl_r,. Immerliarcly, he \\ as shifted to l{lMS [.tospitai ancl thcreafter to X4/ s Srikara l{ospital, Secunderabad lor better Lreatment. FIe incurred huge meclical expenclitr:re and he sought a compensaLlon of I?s.li,OO.0O{J/ a1 t The respondent No.I remained exparte l I I i I i 2 LTD,] N4ACMA No.124 2021

5. The respondent No.2-TSRTC llled counter denying the avermenls of the pctition with regard to Lhc agc, avocation and income of the petitioner and also with regard to the occurrcncc of the accident. 6) Based on the above rival contcntions, thc Tribunal has framed thc following issucs:- I 2 Whether the pleod.ed accident occurred resulting in injured of ihe petitioner due to anA rash or nLgligent cliuing of the uehicle i e' ' RTC Bus beLing No.AP'292 2548 make Ashok L11eland, Model:2)11 bY its diuer? Wl Lether the petltioner is entitLed to compensation and if so, ot uhdt quantum uhat is the tiabilitg of t.he respondents?

3. To uhat relief ? 7 To prove their casc, the petrtioncrs goL exarnincrl PW1 to4 and got marked Exs.A I to A8 and X 1 Orr behalf ol thc respondents, no evidence was adduced

8. Based on the eviclence on record, lhc Tribunal has grantcd a compensation of Rs. 1 1 , 1 1,000/ - Aggrieved by thc said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the RTC' g. Fleard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner i.'*EEEZ 3 ETD,] MACMA No-124 2021 10 The lcarnecl counsel for the appelrant has submitted thar the order and decrec passecl by the ,l,bunal is against the facts and contrary to lirr.v. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted Rs. 11,11,000/- as agarrrsI rhe claim ol Rs.g,OO,UOO/i _ wi[hout any proper reasoning. He further argued that the .I.ribunal committed an error in holding that the accident occurrecl due Lo thc rash and negligcnce of the driver of the RTC bus without nn_t evidcnce or.r record. Ile furthcr argued that the contributory t-tc'gliqence ol) part .l' the injurcd ,rust havc beer taken inLo considerertion by the.lribunal as the injured tried to board running bus art t1.rc Iimr: ol thc accrdent, []c further argued that the 'lribunal h:is granl_ccl exorbitant amounts under vanous heads and therelore, pral.ed to :rllo,,v his appeal. 1 1 . Basecl on the :rbove nvai submission, thts Court iiames t he poitr rs lor. dt tlrr11jp,,1o,,.. I _ [email protected] the acctrienl a.,*, oTin'" i:ip\:[.,;,!";"::,,;";::;F,x)",:,:\, ra\Lr ct.ct , esrrse^ce or ilrc

2. Vlte:tlter lltere tutts ar occu,ren(.e of.the a""r)1.,1;?r""tu,,roro tlegligerLce otr part of ttLe r)ctlttotrct it tle

3. WLetller Lhe corrlpc,. s(lttotL gtat tLed bA tha lnbunaL Ls.ltst an.J r..ctsondblp) 4. Wtether tlTe arder anrl Decree. passed bA the Tibutt(lInee.l curlJ interferelce) 5. To Luhat retieJ? 1 \ i I I i 4 ETD,] MACMA No.124 2021

12. Point Nos.1 & 2: a) The contention ol the appellant is that lhc pctitioner uas negligent and that he tried to board a running bus and fell down and thus, sustained grievous injurics and thus, there is no negligence of the RTC driver. b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet undcr trx.A2 reveals that the 'pelitioncr u,as rn aiting at thc Golden Point Bus stop and when he sau. the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-292-2548 coming lrom l\4edchal to Secunderabad, he r,r'aivcd his hand to stop the bus and thus the bus driver has slorvcd dorvn thc bus, after that, he boarded the bus from the front door and hc put his left leg on the steps and right leg was sLill oulside, the petitioner informed the same to the driver and asked him to slop thc bus, but Lhe bus driver did not stop the bus and movcd the bus in a rash and ncgiigent manner, as a result of which he lell dou,n and his right leg gol crushed under the front r,vhccl. PW 1 is the injured l'".itne s s. His evidence reveals that on requesL of the petitioner, the driver has stopped the bus and without observing that the petitioner has not completely got into the bus, the driver has move1} the bus, which resulted in the accident and caused I grieuo,\s injuries to the petitioner. Therefore, based on the evidence ' j e---i:+Ft!" i" .r- 5 ETD,] MACMA No.124 2021 of PW1 couplecl r.ith Ex.Al and 42, ir is hcld that rhe accident occurred due to rhe rash and negligent driving of lhe RTC clriver and that there is no contributory negligence on part of the petitioner. Point Nos.1 and 2 are ansrvered accordingll,

13. Point No.3:- c) The r:.rse of thr: peritioner is that he sustained grievous inluries Ln the accic-lcn 1., u.hich occurrcd due ro the negliger.rce oI thc RTC driver. l'o pror.c his injurics he got exan-rinecl pW2 to 4. l'W2/Dr.P. R:rmesh is a consultant plastic Surgeon rn M/s Srikara I{ospital. His evidence reveals that the peti[ioner sustained crush rnjr-rry ol right foot u,ith e'ulsions of skin over dorsum ol right loot and sole ol rigl-rt for>t. all toes including great toe of right foot q,erc hanging and barclr. at,tached proximally (traumatic amputalion) and that hc trealed tl're peritioner for the said injuries and also amputaLed all the toes of right foot. His evidence further reveals Lhat the petitioncr has disligurement of right [ooL ancl that he cannol walk perfcctly and cannot run as he lost all the right toes and that petitioner has 45%n of permancnt physical clisabilitt,. Ex.A4 rs issued b5, their hospital :l' ,/ ( 6 ETD,] N/ACMA No.124 2021 d) The evidence of PW4/Dr. Subash Rao, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sri Sai (llinic reveals that he has examined the petiLioner and issued Ex.AS/Disability Certificate- His evidence reveals that the pctitioncr sustained amputaLion of all thc [oes on his right foot and suffered u'rth 45'lu ol pcrmane nl disability. e) Hospi Pw3/Mr. P. Vijay Kumar is the Billing Manager of Srikara tal, his evidence reveals that the petitioner has paid Rs.70,O0O/- tou,ards inpatienl bill and lurthcr reccived Rs.5OO/- tou,ards consultaLion fcc and Rs 6,300/- undcr Bill No 9371 in additior-r to the rnpatient bill of Rs.7O,000/-. trx.A5 is Lhe medical bill issucd by their hospital. He lurther filed trx.X 1 u'hicl-t is Lhe original of the final bill issued by their hospital for Rs 70,0O0/ ' Thus, t-he treatment underwent by their petilioner at Srikara Hospital is proved with the evidence of PW2 and Lhe bills paid by him are proved by the evidence of PW3. PW4 is not a mcmbcr of District Mcdical Board, but hc: has 0 issued the disability certificate on the physical examination of the petrtioner and the disabitity mentioned in IIx.A8 ts 45/o. Ex'A4 is a set of discharge summaries issued by Srikara Hospital and NIMS' The first discharge summary issued by Srikaia Hospital discloses that fhe petitioner was admitted on 19 .06 2077 and was diq.charged on 23.06.2017 and during the said period, he r'r'as 4asagE@Y i- s:' ;.,r { I t { I I I n I I I I t , : a i l L ID,] MACMA No 124 2021 treated ior his injurics sustaincd in roacl traliic accidcnt ancl that he underw.ent right root crebridement and disarticuration of toes under spinal anesthesia. He u,as again admitte d, on 26.06.2O17 ancl d ischarged on O4 .07. 20 17 , Lhe second clischarge summary rc'e.ls th.t he rvas .gairr .(lmitlecl on 29.09.2017, clischargecl on 31 09.2017 g) The evidence of pWl, 2 and 4 coupled with the discharge sun'rmaries under Ex.Az1, revcnl the treatment underwer_rt b1.. the pcLirioner a,d trx.A8 is the disabrlirl., certilicate rr'hrch discloses that tl-re peririo,er sustaired 45%o oi'disab ity n,hich is partiar and permanent iLr nature, as a result of traumatic ampuLaltion of all the toes of the riglrt fooL. [n vie,"v of thc gravify of injurir:s sustained by thc pctitioncr u,hich involves lot of parn and suffering, the Tribunal has granted an :rmount of Rs.SO,OOO/ u,l-rich is opined to be rearsonablc. h) The Tribunal has aq.arded amoun[s under different heads i.e., Rs.50,000/ - towards discomfort and Rs.5O,0O0/ _ towards pai r_r and suffering and Rs.SO,OOO/- torvard s mental agony. Generally the pain and suflcring includes all these elements. lt. is opined that Rs.1,OO,OOO/- if awarded tou.ards pain and suffering would be just and reasonable in Lhis case. 8 ETD,] MACMA No.124 2021 i) The medical bills are fi1ed to an extent of Rs.1,62,000/- and hence, the same is awarded. j) Considcring the entire evidence on record and in addition to lhe medical expenses, the petitioner might have incurred some additional amount of Rs.SO,OOOi - ol expenditure towards extra nourishment, lransportation and other incidental expensesr and all the elements puL together the amount awarded [owards medical expenses and treatmenl is arrived at Rs.2,12,OOO{- (1 ,62,000 + so,000). k) The salary certificate is fileci under Ex.A6 n,hich shou,s th:rt [hc deceased used to work in their esLablishment and earn a salary ol Rs. 12,OOO/- per month, but the employer is not exarnined. Thus, trx.A6 is not proved. In the injury certificate he is s[ated to bc agcd '52' years, as per Ex.AE/ Disability Certificatc his agc is mentioned as '58'years. No other documents is hled in proof of his age. Hence, the same is taken into consideration. The accident occurred in 2017. Thus, he might have been aged between 50-55 years at Lhe time ol the accident. He is an able bodicd pcrson prior Lo the accident, he must have been into some avocation and he must have been earning to maintain his family. Thus on a reasonable hypothesis, his income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.8,00p/- per month is opined to be just and reasonable. Whether :.*E#F.ry 9 ETO,] MACMA No.124 2021 the amputation of toes rvould hamper his duties as a u,orkcr in Dadus Mitai Vaatika is not established. BuL it must have resulred in discomfort and reducecl ability of the petitioner, u,hich cannot be ruled out. 1) Keeping in r..ieu,the dicta laid dornn in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumarr, 45o/o of disability as disclosed rrom Ex,Au is scared down to 25o/o q,ith regard to rvhole body and the loss of earnrngs is scaled dorvn Lo 207o. Alter a<1ding luturc llrospecrs of 10% monthly incomc w,ould be Rs.S,gOO/- and thc: loss of fu lrLre carnings is arrived ar Rs.8,800 x12 = 1,05,60O x 20,1L x 13 u,hich comes up to 2,71,560 I - m) Because he suflered amputation ol toes, he rnusl have been our of work lor alleast around twch,e mor-rths. Accorclingly, a sum of 96'0O0/- {X{ )UU \ l 2l ts ar,r ar.clcd irs , ompcnsrllol towards loss of earnings. n) In all, the petitioner is entitled to [he following Lompensation amounts sL Not I 2 3 Name of the heads Compensatrort r-r nde r thc hcad 'injr:rics, shock. pain and suffering Compensalion o[ loss o[ earninss ft:ast three months) Loss ol future earnings dlle to Awarded by this Court Rs. 1,00,000/_ 96,OOO I _ 2,74,560 I - r20Il (lo scc 143 I 10 ETD,] MACMA No.124 2021 4 disability Compensation undcr the head of hospital, Medical Expenscs, transport, extra-nourishment and . other incidental expenses Total 2,r2,OOO l- 6,42,5601- o) Therefore, the compensation to which rhe petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.6,82,56O/ whilc the Tribunal has granted Rs.1I,1,1,O00/- Hence, it is held rhat the compensation awardcd by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hcnce, point No.1 is ansu'ered accordingly

14. Point No.4: - In view of the lindings arrived at point No.3, the order and decree of the Tribunal need Lo be modiliecl reducing the compensation from Rs.I 1,11,000 to 6,a2,560 l-. Point No.4 is ansu.ered accordingly

15. Point No,S:- Jn the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensa[ion from Rs. I 1, 1 1,O00 Lo 6,82,560 I - with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition Lill realization. The Insurance Company has already deposited 5O% of the decreetal amount awarded by thc Tribunal which is already withdrawn by the respondents herein. 'lhercfore, the balance amount if any, is to I : I 11 ETD,J MACMA No.124 2021 be deposited by thc Insurance Company within a period of two mon ths lrom the dalc o[ recejpt of a copy of thrs juclgment No cosl s Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/ OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR \ecrroru oFFrcER To, 'I . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Secunderabad.,(with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI.R ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Afy i i l i ! t I I I I I I I i I I I ; I i I I I I : l l I r a t I( I HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.124 of 2021 iE $T/rTr! r 1t Stq $ O -:.-,. ','. )/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ (, Lt 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 124 OF 2021 Between: The Telarigana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by -its .Regional fVlanager, dH Region, Personal Department, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. ...AppellanURespondent AND

1. Upendra Kumar Misra S/o. Late Vinay Prakash fVisra, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Private Service, Rl/o. Plot No. 48, Tadbund, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad-50009. RespondenUPetitioner

2. J. Venkanna, S/o. Gopaiah, Aged Major, Occ. RTC Driver, Rl/ o. H. No. 7-166, Nakrekal, Nalgonda, Telangana-50821 1. ...RespondenU ResPondent Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No.76 of 2018 dated. 13/1 1/2019 on the file of the Chairman, lt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Secunderabad. 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 SRl. R ANURAG, Advocate for the Appellant and of none appeared, Advocate for the Respondent No.'t and 2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows. 1 That the lvlotor Accident Civil tMiscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.11,11,000/- to 6,82,560/- with interest. @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 7

2. That the lnsurance Company be and hereby is to be deposit the if any 50% of the decreetal amount awarded by the Tribunal with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 3- That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed, in all other respecls; and

4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- SRI M. OSMAN ALI BAIG NT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, l\/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Secunderabad.,(with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies 41, HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 DECREE MACMA.N o.124 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t) t) a b