S.Dakya v. Telangana State Road Trans

Judgment

This Appeal is filed by the appe t/claimant assailing the Arvard, dt.17.12.2017, in MVOP.No.76 of 2Ol7 on the file of the Chairmal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the TribunaiJ, by which the clairn of the appellant seeking compensation u,as dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arral,ed before the Tribunal. ,+ Brief facts of the case: 3. The clajmant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 18.07.2015. On the fateful day, u,hile the claimant was proceeding in a RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 1l Z 7OO4 from Koti, Osmania Medical College, towards Abids, and on the bus reaching GPO at Abids, the claimant rvhile alighting the bus fell down as the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which his left hand came under the bus Qrre and was crushed and broken, and also the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediatell. after the incident, the claimant was shifted to Kamineni Hospital and admitted as an inpatient and got treatment, pursuant to which, the police, Abids Road P.S., Hyderabad, registered a case in Cr:ime No.23 1 of 2015 against the driver of TSRTC and conducted investigation

4. The claimant contended that as on the date ol incident, he \\ras aged about 36 ,vears and working as Home Guard on contract basis and earning Rs. 10,000/ - p.m. and that on ) account of grievous and fracture injuries sustained by him, he was confined to bed rest and could not perform his duties and lost his employment. It is further contended that the respondents being the State Road Transport Corporation were jointly responsible for the acts of its driver in causing the accident, and are liable to compensate the claimant for the injuries sustained by him.

5. The respondents filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the claimant was himself responsible for the injuries sustained by him, as he got down the moving bus, as such stated that the rcspondents are not liable to pay any compensatio n

6. The Tribunal has lramed the following issues: " 1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S.DakVa, due to ro,sh and negligent diving of TSRTC beaing registration No.AP 11 Z 7OO4, bg its driuer? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to ang amperlsation and if so, at uhat quantum and wLwt is the liabilitg of the respondents? 3) To u.that reliej?" 6

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself examined as PWI and also examined PW2 to PW4, and got marked Exs.Al to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. No evidence, either oral or documentar5z, was adduced on behalf of the respondents

8. The Tribunal after elaborate hearing and enquiry dismissed the claim of the claimant, holding that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the RTC Bus and on the other hand held that the claimalt himself was at fault for getting do'"vn from moving bus and dismissed the claim petition.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial welfare legislation and summary in nature, the Tribunal ought not to have applied strict principles o[ evidence and proof, and contended that the Tribunal under erroneous views dismissed the MVOP without proper appreciation of factual matrix in right perspective. 7

10. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-TSRTC. 1 1 . Learned counsel for the appellant appellant/claimant contended that due to the crush injury sustained by the claimant, he suffered permanent disability @ 6OYo and has incurred huge amounts of Rs 1 ,00,000/- towards medical expenditure, and has also lost lris job of Home Guard and lost his monthly income of Rs. l2,OOOl p.m. As such, prayed to allow the appeal granting compensation of Rs.8,O0,OOO/- as sought for by the claimant in the claim petition before the Tribunal along rvith accrued intcrest.

12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-TsRTc submitted that the findings of the tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the claimant himself while getting down from the moving bus, as such, the claimant is not entitled to seek any compensation, and the said findings of the Tribunal are justifiable, and that the compensation sought by the claimant was also highly 8 excessive and thus, supported the award passed by the Tribuna-I, ald contended that the interference of this Court with the well considered findings of the Tribunal is unlr,arranted and prayed to dismiss the appeal. i3. I have taken note of the resoective submissions ccade oE either side and given earnest consideration to their submissions and perused the record.

14. The follou,ing issues fall for consideration bv this Court: 1) Whether the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is perverse and erroneous? 2) To what relieP Observations and findings: 15. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the claimant/injured, on a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the claimant boarded the RTC bus No.127K on

18.07.2015 at about 13.00 hours at Koti Osmania Medical College Bus Stop for proceeding to Abids to attend his duties. While he was attempting to atight the bus at Abids GPO, due to the heavy rush of the boarders of the bus, he was not allowed to 9 get down at the Abids GPO Stop, Hyderabad and at that juncture, the bus driver without verifying whether arry passenger is getting down, moved the bus rashly and negligently, and though the claimant knocked on the door several times cautioning the driver to stop the bus, nonetheless, the driver recklessly moved the bus and the claimant in the process of alighting the bus slipped and fell down, resulting in the rear tyre of the bus passing over his left elbow, resulting in crush injury to left hand and other grievous injuries. This fact was not properly appreciated b_v the Tribunal and erroneously held that the claimant attempted to get dovvn from a moving bus and held the claimant as rcsponsible for the injuries ald exonerated the respondents-TsRTC from liability to pay compensation.

16. In the factual matrix of this nature, it is relevant to note that RTC drivers and conductors play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of passengers who commute to their destinations, and as such the effective coordination between them is essential for the smooth and safe operation of public transport. More so, a duty is cast on them to ensure the safety of life and limbs to i0 the passengers, who commute to their destinations every day and the time plays importalt role for the passengers to reach their destinations for attending their respective duties or obligations, as in the instant case, the incident happened in the afternoon hours, when the injured was going to attend his duties. 17 . In these circumstances, apart from the statutory duty to drive u.ith reasonable care to avoid untoward incidents, the driver is duty-bound to coordinate with the conductor and move the bus onlv after receiving a proper and safe signal from him after ensuring that adequate time is provided for passengers to board or alight at the bus stops. As well, the conductor carries the responsibility of ensuring passenger safety by supervising the boarding and alighting process, preventing unsafe movement near the exits, and giving clear and timely signals to the driver for starting, stopping, or reversing the bus only when it is safe to move the bus. Failure to perform these duties may amount to dereliction of duties and the said factual matrix the Tribunal should have kept in mind in deciding the liability of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. !1

18. In the present case, as noted above, had the driver or conductor been vigilant in observing the claimant attempting to alight, and had the conductor given the signal or blown whistle to move the bus after the claimant had alight the bus, the accident could have been averted. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the 2"a respondent that the claimant was not at the footboard and trying to alight the bus, when the bus was in a running state and that the injured claimant has fell on the road where there is no bus stop

19. Further, with regard to the Tribunal's observation that it was highly unlikely for the rear tyre to pass over the left hand of the petitioner immediately as the bus s ould not have gained sulficient speed while in the process of moving after stopping, is untenable and is unjustilied as the manner in which the injured/claimant suffered injury would ampl_v got to show that the driver has not taken proper care. So also, the subject vehicle being a city bus is operational with tw'o exits - one at the front, normally used by ladies, and another at the rear, usually used by all. It is not the case of the respondents that the claimant attempted to alight from the front exit. l2

20. Therefore, in my considered vieu', the claimant got injured while attempting to alight from the rear exit of the bus and due to sudden moving ol the bus, slipped and fell down, as such there is every reasonable possibility of his body coming into contact u,ith the rear tyre. Such an occurrence is consistent with the manner in which passengers fall near the rear exit of the buses and all these circumstances compel this Court to drau, an inference to hold as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus

21. [t is sett]cd position of law that a person "mounting or alighting from the vchicle" is covered under a policy if the injury occurs in the oourse of mounting/ alighting. Thus, a public trartsport corporation (RTC) 1S generally liable for injuries sustained by a passcnger while alighting from a moving bus, if not attempted b-v voluntary act, such injuries being considered as "arising out of the use of the vehicle', when the driver and/or conductor of the blrs do not take any precautions for stopping the bus and 1;roceecl onl.1, when all the passengers boarded and alighted the bus l3 22, However, this Court also draws an inference as to the negligent act of the claimant in attempting to alight from a moving bus, thereby contributing to the occurrence of the accident.

23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court without hesitation holds that the driver of the respondents-TSRTC bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the injured claimant has a,lso contributed to the accident and accordingly, this Court determines the contributory negligence at 3Oo/o on the part of the claimant.

24. Now, coming to the issue of what would be the just and reasonable compensation the oral testimony of PW2, u,ho is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, u.ho treated the claimant, goes to show that the claimant sustained three grievous injuries and due to the injuries, the claimant is unable to lift or hold any weight u,ith his left hand, that there is deformity and disfigurement of the left hand rvhich is permanent in nature, and that the claimant requires further surgery for skin gfafting. PW2 assessed the permanent

1.+ disability of the claimant at 600/o, which is markedasEx.Xl and nothing contrary has been elucidated in the cross-examination of PW2. As such, this Court linds it just and proper to accept the disability assessed by PW2, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated the injured/claimant as 600%.

25. Though the injured/claimant stated to be working as a Home Guard on a temporary basis and earning Rs. 12,OOO/- per month, no concrete evidence has been placed to show his earnings. Horvever, ln Malakappa us The lffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anothert, the Hon'ble Apex Court corrsidered Rs.B,OOO/- p.m., in the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the claimant, and thus, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,00O/ - for determination of loss of earnings and also to detcrmine the compensation towards permanent disabilitr.

26. As the r:laimant s'as 38 years ol age and was not emplo-r,ed in a permanent job, in terms of the principles laid ' 2025 trusc jqrr \ \ t5 dou,n in National Insurance Cornpang Ltd. os. Pranag Sethi and, others2, 4Oo/o is to be added towards future prospects, which amounts to Rs.3,200/-. Thus, the monthly income of the claimant is assessed at Rs. 1l,2OO/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). As the age of the claimarrt is 38 years, the multiplier of '15' is proper to be applied in terms of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Venna. as. Delhi Transport Corp,", which is just and proper. Accordingly, the total future earnings rvorks out to Rs.20, 16,oo0/- (Rs. ll,2OO / - X 12 x 15). Since, the claimant has suflered 6O% permanent disability, the compensation tolr,ards permanent disability would be Rs. 12,09,600/- (Rs.2O, 16,000/- " 6Ookl.

27. Further, having regard to the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that he underwent in-paticnt treatment tu,ice, it is just and fair to award a lump sum amount of Rs.24,0OO/-(Rs.B,O0O/- X 3 months), towards loss of earnings in the nature of injuries sustained by him- - 20t7 ACJ 2?OO ' zoog (o) scc tzt 16

28. The claimant has asserted that he incurred more than Rs.1,0O,00O/- towa-rds medica-l expenditure and in support of his claim, he produced Ex.X2, Discharge Bill for Rs.48,359.52 and Ex.A7. a bundle of medical bil1s amounting to Rs. 10,274/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total of Rs.58,634/- (Rs.48,359.52 + Rs.iO,274 /- Rs.58,633.52 rounded to Rs.58,634/ -l tou'ards medical expenditure incurred. Besides the same, the claimanr is entirled to Rs.60,0OO/-(Rs.2O,O0O/- x 3) for the pain and suffering of the three grievous injuries, Rs. 15,000/- tou'ards trzrnsportation, Rs. 1O,0OO/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.10,0O0/ towards loss of amenities and pleasures of life. In viet, o[ the fracture injury, prolonged treatment, and rcstricted mobilit_v, the claimant is further entitled to Rs.20,000/- torvards attendant charges, and also an amount ol Rs.25,000/ tou,ards the future medical expenses for skin grafting as per the evidence of PW2. 29 . Thu s, tl-re total compensation works out to Rs.14,32,234l . Out of this amount, in view of the findings of contributon, ri cgligcnce assessed (ii1 3Oo/o on the part of the claimant, thc respondents-TSRTC is liable to pay the balance t7 7Oo/o of the compensation i.e., to Rs. 10,02,564/- along with interest @ 7 .5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn Pranag Sethi's case (supra).

30. In view of the above, the tota-l compensation, to which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Amount I I Income of the injured/ claimant Rs.8,OOO/- per month 2 ,r I 4 J 6 7 8 9 1i I Future prospects Monthly income Multiplier Physical Disability Amount toq,ards Physical Disability Medical expenses Pain & Suffering [,oss of carnings Transportation Rs.3,2OOl- (Rs.8,000 X aO%) Rs.11,2OOl- (Rs.S,OOO/- + Rs.3,200) '15', 600/o Rs.12,O9,6OO/- (Rs.11,20O X 12 x 15 X 6O%) Rs.58,634/- (Rs.48,359.52 .r Rs.lO,274 / - = Rs.58,633.52 rounded to Rs.58,634/ ) l Rs.6O,OOO/- (Rs.2O,OO0/-X 3 grievous injurics) Rs.24,OOO/- (Rs.S,OOO/- X 3 months) Rs.15,OOO/- --- l Extra Nourishment Rs.1O,OOO/- l8 t2 t3 l4 Loss of Plcasures & Amenities in lilc Attendant Charges Rs.1O,OOO/- Rs.2O,OOo/- Future Expenditure Total coDper,sation: Medical Rs.25,OOO/- Rs.14,32,2341- 7O7o towards contributory negligeuce of thc resirondents I Rs. 1O,O2,564/- lP.s. 1 4,32,2'34 X 7 AoA = Rs. 1O,02,563.80 rounded to Rs. 10,02,564/-)

31. Accordingly, the appeal is ALLOWED setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal, dt.17.12.2017 in MVOP.No.769 of 2Ol7 and the said OP is hereby allowed granting compensation of Rs. lO ,02,564 I - along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per arnum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents-Corporation. The respondents- Corporation is directed to pay the said amount along with accrued interest u,ithir-r a period of trvo (O2) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The injured/claimant is entitled to the said compensation amount, subject to payment of deficit Court Fee before the learned Tribunal. Upon such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to u,ithdraw half of the said amount without furnishing any security and the remaining, a-fter a period of three 1,'ears from the date of l.t withdrawal. t9 As a sequel thereto, misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stald closed" SDI A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunai-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge: City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. (with record)

2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 4 The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad 5. One CC to Sri C Mohan Prakash, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to Sri M Ram Mohan Reddy (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies I ABK ]P HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 1HES ,R o C) 0 7 [[B ?f\?fi .6-1 rt/ * -^^.-r''rr,r9-'y'' JUDGMENT MACMA.No.100 of 2022 ALLOWNG THE MACMA ,\ra lax- [ 3485 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2022 Between: S.Dakya, S/o. S. Bikya, aged:38 Years, Occ: Home Guard, Rl/o. 3-9-524, Sharada Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad AND 1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan , RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), Rep. by its Depot Manager, Koti Bus Depot , Hyderabad. ...AppellanUClaimant ...RespondentsiRespondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V,O.P.No. 769 of 2017 daled 17-12-2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge: City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: 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 C Mohan Prakash, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M Ram Mohan Reddy, (SC For TSRTC), Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA is allowed, setting aside the Award dt.17 .12.2017 passed in MVOP No.769 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad;

2. That the MVOP No.769 of 2017 is hereby allowed; granting compensation of Rs.10,02,5641 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Two thousand five hundred and sixty four only) to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the Respondents/Corporation, I

3. That the respondents-Corporation is directed to pay the compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order;

4. That the injured/claimant is entitled to the compensation amount, subject to payment of deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal; and 5 That upon such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw half of the compensation amount without fumishing any security and the remaining, after a period of three years from the date of 1't withdrawal. Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FICER 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge: City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. To

2. Two CD Copies y- ABK,Ipr HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 DECREE MACMA.No.100 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA 0