APSRTC v. Pedapalli Yella Reddy & Ors.

Judgment

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

06.09.1999 passed in M.V.O.P.No.73 of 1998 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Kadapa.

2. The appellant is the APSRTC. The sole claimant is the injured claimant who received multiple fractures in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.02.1997 near S.A.Sattar and Company on Proddatur – Mydukur Road near Kotha Khaderabad, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

3. According to the first respondent-claimant, while he along with his wife was proceeding in an autorikshaw bearing No.KRD 2491 at about 8.15 a.m on 27.02.1997, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP9Z 653 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the autorikshaw near S.A.Sattar and Company on Proddatur – Mydukur Road near Kotha Khaderabad, due to which the auto rikshaw turned turtle. The first respondent and his wife fell down and received severe multiple injuries. Initially, they were taken to Proddatur Government Hospital and as their condition was critical, they were shifted to Appolo Hospital, Madras. The wife of the first respondent succumbed to the injuries on 04.03.1997. Whereas, the first respondent, who received multiple fractures, though survived, became disabled, despite undergoing treatment. Under various heads, as against the claim of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and granted compensation of Rs.2,34,500/-.

4. Challenge to the award by the appellant – APSRTC is as to it’s liability as well as the quantum of compensation.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

6. According to the appellant – APSRTC, the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorikshaw bearing No.KRD 2491 and learned Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the Corporation.

7. The first respondent – injured, who was examined as PW.1 stated in his evidence that while he and his wife were proceeding in an autorikshaw, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 653, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the autorikshaw bearing No. KRD 2491, due to which the autorikshaw turned turtle, on account of which, he and his wife received injuries. As against this, the driver of APSRTC bus, who was examined as RW.1 stated in his evidence as follows: “When the bus reached S.A.Sattar & Co. Petrol Bunk near Kotha Khaderabad an Auto Rickshaw come in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction. The driver of the auto Rickshaw in order to avoid traffic, in front of him, came to the extreme right side of the road and in order to avoid the bus, he took sudden turn to left and as a result of which, the auto rickshaw turned turtle and dashed against my bus. At the time of the accident, I was driving the bus slowly and on the extreme left side of the road.”

8. However, it is stated by RW-1 in the cross-examination that after the accident, he lodged a report with the police and thereafter, with the assistance of the conductor took the injured to the Government Hospital. However, Ex.A.2 copy of the first information report reveals that it was lodged by the driver of the autorikshaw, but not by RW1 as spoken to by him before the learned Tribunal. Further, it is mentioned in Ex.A.2 that the injured was taken to the hospital by somebody in another auto.

9. Therefore, the tribunal rightly disbelieved the version of RW1 to the effect that he did not give the report, but deposed falsely to absolve himself of the liability and thereby ultimately, placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A.2 copy of FIR rightly held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP9Z 6531. The said finding being based on evidence and reasoning does not call for any interference in this appeal.

10. The next question relates to the quantum of compensation.

11. The first respondent/claimant filed medical bills for an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- before the Tribunal which were considered to be issued basing on the treatment, he had undergone in Appolo Hospital, Madars and the compensation granted towards medical expenses being based on documentary evidence needs, no interference in this appeal.

12. Ex.A.3 certified copy of the wound certificate discloses that the first respondent – injured received eleven injuries and all of them are grievous in nature. Though, the first respondent filed Ex.A.5 disability certificate, which was issued by the doctor, was not examined to prove the disability. However, the learned Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of earnings. The evidence of PW.1 discloses that after the death of his wife, he closed down the business, as he is not in a position to carry on the business due to disability sustained by him caused due to fractures. The fractures sustained by him in the accident and even if the multiple fractures, which were borne out from Ex.A.3, certified copy of wound certificate and Ex.A.5, disability certificate are considered, the amount of Rs.50,000/- can be said to be just and reasonable for the injuries sustained by him. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – APSRTC also did not contend that the amount granted towards permanent disability and loss of earnings. His only contention as regards the quantum of compensation is that the amount of Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is excessive. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering which in the opinion of this Court is also excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.25,000/- in this appeal.

13. This apart, the interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization awarded by the learned Tribunal being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum. The award is therefore, modified granting an amount of Rs.2,24,500/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty four thousand and five hundred only) as compensation to the first respondent – injured with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: 05.11.2009 ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.58 OF 2000 DATED: 05.11.2009