APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. 1. Gaddam Venkanna , Venkateshwarlu

Judgment

This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved b1' ttre Order and Decree date'd 23.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 20 1(l passed by the Motor Acci<lent Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional I)istrict Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal") granting a cr mpensation of Rs.1O,89,70Ol-.

For convenience and clarity, the parties hereir itre referred to as they u'ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The Lrrief averments of the petitioner before ,.lrt Tribunal are that on 11.O1.2OO9 the petitioner and one I]. Kiran were proceeding towards Krishna Hotel at Pillalamarri rtts-stage from Janagaon try-pass road on motor cycle bearing No..\l)-Q-5629 and on the way at about 2:00 a.m when they reac t'rcd near S.V. Engineering College, one R.T.C bus bearing \ t \P-28-Z-4284 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent mann(: and at a high speed, dashe<l the motor cycle from behind, dut to which the petitioner who was going as a pillion rider, sust ainecl grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the aL:r-:ident he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet, thereafter to Kanrineni Hospitai, Hyderabad. That the petitioner incurred more thar Rs.a,30,OO0/- ETD,J MACMA No.108_2021 ;i towards medical expenses and that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was working as Supervisor in Durga Bhavani Hotel and used to earn Rs.6,0OO/- per month. That the petitioner sustained permanent disabiiity and his right leg was amputated up to hip. Thus, prayed the Tribunal to grant a compensation of Rs.18,O0,00o/-.

4. Respondent No.l, the driver of RTC Bus has filed his counter affidavit denying the averments in the petition and further contended that he is an experienced person and that even if he is held liable, it is the respondent No.2/RTC which has to pay the compensation and that respondent No.l is not liable to pay such compensation.

5. The respondent No.2/RTC has hled counter affidavit denying the petition averments apart from contending that the owner arld insurer of the motor bike bearing No.AP-24-Q-5629 are tlne necessary parties to the proceedings and that the petition is bad for their non-joinder. [t was further contended that the rider of the motor bike did not have a vaiid driving license and that due to the negligence of the bike rider, the accident occurred and that there was no negligence of the bus driver.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- . -;;i+. / 3 ETD,I MACMA No.108 2021 1 2 Whether the pelitioner sustained injuies or th? nt)tor uelicle a('cident, tf so, uheth.er tlle accident occtrred du<. 1(. llte ra.sh and n-eglqent driuing hA the diuer of APSRTC BrL.s beairLt l;o. >-248-2 4284? Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim conper$ tttotl, il so to ullat ailowlt and from whom it sttould be caLlected?

3. Tc' uhat retief ? 7 . To prove their case, the petitioners got exarnincd PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On beha,lf of the r,:spondents, no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunz I has granted a compensatlon of Rs. 10,89,70O/-. Aggrieved by th,: said order and decree dated O5.09.2O19, the present appeal is hle<l bv the RTC.

9. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel 1i,r the appellant and Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for he respondent No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has sut nritted that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess compensati( n. He further argued that the accident occurred due to the raslr and negligent driving of the bike rider and that he was racing on his motor bike with another bike rider and that due to his rash irnd negligence, the accident has occurred. He further argued tha'- the owner and rider of tho motor bike are necessary parties ancl that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary part cs. He further 4 ETD,J MACMA No.108 2021 disputed the income of the deceased and the amount granted by the Tribunal under various heads.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal was right in granting the compensation and that though the RTC is raising so many contentions, it has not adduced any rebuttal evidence before the Tribunal, he prayed to uphold the award passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for determination:- 1 Whether th.e dnuer of APSRTC bus bearing Na.AP 282-4284 uas tlot rosh arvl negligent while drivitrg the bus on 11.O1.2OO9 at 2:lO d.m orl th.e outskirts of Vijayawada to ECIL causing the accidettt agdinst ft1otor btke beanng NI.AP Q 5629 of the d.eceased.? 2- WLtEttLer the compensatign granted. by th.e Tfibura) is excess?

3. Wheth.er the Otder arvl lkcree pd.ssed by the Tibunal need anA itrterkrer\(e?

4. To uhdt releP

13. Point No.1:- a) A perusal of Exs.Al and A2/FIR and Charge sheet reveal that the driver of RTC bus is the accused and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. There is no rebuttal evidence lead by the RTC in this regard. PW1 has stated in his evidence that he was going as a pillion rider on the fateful day and that while they were proceeding from Janagaon by-pass road towards Krishna Hotel at Pillalamarri bus stage, a 5 ETD,J MACMA No.108 2021 bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-4284 driven by its driv.:r. in a rash and negligent milnner and at a high speed, hit the xrotor bike from behind, clue to which he fell down from the motor bike and sustained grievous injuries. Nothing material was elicited from his cross examination to discredit his evidence. No other evidence is placed by the insurance company to hold it otherv ise. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the reLsh and negligent driving of tht: bus driver, but not due to the neglip ence of the rider of the motor bike. Hence Point No.1 is answered zr,.cordingly. L4. Point No.2:- b) The appellants are disputing the quanfum r[ compensation i.e., awarcled by the Tribunal in favour of the ir jured-petitioner. The petitic,ner who got examined himself as PW1 b as asserted that he ',r.as aged 38 years and was working as Supelr.isor in a Hotel and used lo earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A3 is the MLC issued by Kamineni Hospital which shows that the petil ioner sustained grievous injury on his right leg. Exs.AS and 46 ar-e the discharge summaries issued by the Kamineni Hospital. c) PW2 is the Doctor of Kamineni Hospital, his ..r.idence reveals that the petrtioner was given inpatient treatm(.n t at Kamineni Hospital, he was admitted on 12.01.2009 and his right leg was amputated up to hip joint and after amputalion, hr: u,as discharged , i I I I I I l I I I I I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.108 2021 on 3O.O 1.2009. Subsequently, on 08.06.2009 the petitioner was again admitted into their hospital and discharged on 11.06.2009. In his cross examination it is elicited that he has not treated the petitioner, but that he is giving evidence as per the record. Exs.AS and A6 are issued by their hospitat. A perusal of Exs.AS and 4.6 reveal the said fact with regard to the treatment underwent by PW1. Since, PW2 is working at Kamineni Hospital as on the date of his evidence, and deposed on the basis of record, his evidence is credit worthy and Exs.AS and A6 can be safely relied upon. These exhibits further reveal that the petitioner was prescribed rvith certain medication at the time of his discharge. d) Ex.A7 is the bunch of medical bills for a total sum of Rs.3,25,7OOl-. PW3 is the Billing Manager of the Kamineni Hospital and he deposed that Ex.A7 is issued by them. Therefore, based on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A7, the medical expenses of Rs.3r2S,OOOl - can be awarded and the same is awarded by the Tribunal. Further the appellant has disputed with regard to the percentage of disabilify and loss of earnings awarded by the Tribunal. Ex.A8 is the Disabilit5r Certihcate issued by the District Medical Board. As per Ex.A8, the percentage of disability was 9O7o due to loss of limb and that it is a permanent disability. 1 ETD,J MACMA No.108 2021 e) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumarl, it has to be scaled down to the whole tr rdy and then the loss of earnings have to be assessed. The Tribrural has assessed the Loss of Income as 60% and the same appears to be justihed as the petitioner suffered amputation of right leg. I{e was aged 38 years as per Ex.A8. So the multiplier applicable fc r 38 years is '15' which also cannot be disputed. As far as th ( income of the petitioner is concerned, he stated that he used 1r, rvork in a hotel and used to earn Rs.6,000/ - per month. It is borne out by record that the petitioner was an able bodied person pricr to the accident ald u.as aged 38 years. Therefore, Rs.6,000/- pt,r month can be awarded on a reasonable hypothesis. It is the cornmon knowledge that without a reasonable physical litness, one ( annot attend to his/her nr)rmal work. In the light of the evidence iLh regard to the 'r injuries srrstained by the petitioner and the treatrnent underwent by him and also taking into consideration the timc required for the injuries to heal, it is reasonable to accept that h<: u'as out of work I \ for at least about six months. Accordingly, a sum of 36ofi)/- [6000 x 6f is awarded as compensation towards loss of earnings. f) Therefcrre, the assessment made by the 'I\'ibunal that the petitioner was earning Rs.6,000/ - and the zr nount awarded 'zot t 1to scc: :+:i 8 ETD,J MACMA No.108 2021 towards loss of earning per month appears to be quite reasonable. Hence, the compensation i.e., granted by the Tribunal is found to be well justihed and does not need any interference. point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No,3:- In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunat do not need anv interference and therefore, the same is upheld.

16. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 23.08-2O19 passed in M.V.O.p.No.54 of 2010 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-ir Additional District Judge, Naigonda. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRARL SECTION OFFICER I To, '1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. One CC to Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies .0sy ABK HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.108 of 2021 .:'iii.e1 :\ ?ffi :' () tr. -tl DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT CI]STS u J l344/-l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAL.A DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 108 OF 2021 Between: APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad rep. by its General Manager, (owner of RTC Bus No.AP 282 4284) (presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna District) AND 1 2 Gaddam Venkanna , Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Age 38 years, Occ Supervisor in Bhavani Hotel, R/o.Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District Bheemavarapu SambaSiva Rao, S/o. Seetha Rama Rao, Aged 49 years, R/o.H.No. 1 8449, Kedareswarapet, 3 land, Vijayawada, Krishna District. (Respondent no.2 not necessary party to the appeal) ...Appellant ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 54 ot 2010 dated 2310812019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, N algonda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.'1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dt 2310812019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 54 of 20'10 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tdbunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL )EPUTY REGISTRAR + SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll ,\dditional District Judge, Nalgonda 2. fwo CD Copies ABK/NVB .-:" l,''!ryif,7 r'/ HIGH COURT ETD,J DATED: 07l03tZO2S DECREE MACMA.No.108 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l l i