The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal has been filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.09.20I I passed b.v the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P. No.683 of 2O7O, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2

Heard Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Trarsport Corporation (now Telangana State Road Transport Corporation).

3. Brief facts of case: On 09.04.2009 the appellant, 17 other students and 3 faculty members went to Visakhapatnam and sta-r,ed at Saipriya Residency. On 11.O1 .2OO9 at 10-30 a.m. the appellant, other students and faculty members reached steel plant and requested the authorities to visit the steel plant, for which one Aruna Madam told lhem to come after lunch. Then they went to I I l 2 ',% Kurmanna Palem junction at l-10 p.m. in the auto and while they were walking tou,ards left side, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 1630 came from steel pla-nt being driven by its driver in rash and negligent marner with high speed and dashed her and other six students, due to which, Radhika, Soujanya a-nd Madhavi fell down and succumbed to injuries and the appellant, Sravani and Laxmi Prasanna have sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and from there they rvere shifted to Care Hospital. The appellant was admitted in Care Hospital on ll.O4.2OO9 and was discharged on 24.O4.2OO9. After the accident, the appellant came to know that the bus driver u,as talking in cell phone while he was driving the bus and due to that only, the accident was occurred. The Police, Steel Plant P.S. registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 338 and 304-4, of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. Thus, the appellant has filed O.P.No.683 of 2010 against the respondents-Corporation claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available record, the Tribunal has alloq,ed the O.P. in part and 7 J awa-rded compensation of Rs.70,OO0/- to be payable by the respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent Nos. i and 2 the appellant has sustained grievous injuries i.e., severe anorectal, perineal laceration, pelvic fracture and lacial lacerations and he was admitted in K.G. Hospital, Viaskhapatnam and from there she was shifted to Care Flospital, Hyderabad on 11.04.2009 and was discharged on 21.O+.2OO9. Thereafter she is taking treatment continuously. Pursuant to Ex.A7, the appellant incurred more than Rs. 1,00,00O/- tor.r"ards medical expenses for the injuries sustained by her and it was established by examining PWs.1 to 3 and Iiled Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.xl and x2, however, the Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.70,OO0/-

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2- Corporation submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded compensation amount of Rs.70,000/. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to claim the arnount pursuant to Ex.A7 estimate certificate, on the ground 4 that it is only estimated_ certificate and the same is not final bill receipt. The appellant has not placed any evidence to prove that he spent the amount mentioned io Ex.A7. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed by her in this appeal. 7 . This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. Admittedly, the appellant was post-graduate student ar-td prosecuting M.B.A. at the time of accident ald she has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus of respondent No. 1-Corporation. It is not in dispute that the appellant was admitted in K.G. Hospital, Viaskhapatnam and from there she was shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad on 17.O4.2009 and was discharged on 24.04.2OO9. The medical record reveals that the appellant has sustained injuries namely severe anorectal, perineal laceration, pelvic fracture and facial lacerations. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.4,O0,0OO/- under various heads. To establish her claim, she examined herself as PW1 and also examined PW2 Doctor who gave treatment to her and PW3, Administrative Officer in Maheshwara Engineering College and marked Exs.A1 ) to A7 and Exs.Xl and X2. Ex.A4 discharge summary clearly reveals that the appellant was in Care Hospital as inpatient from ll.O4.2OO9 to 24.O4.2009. PW-2 in his deposition specifically stated that even after discharge from the hospital, the appellant has to take treatment and continuous treatment is also required to her in future. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the injuries sustained by her. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled an amount of Rs. 1 ,0O,OOO/ - towards pelvic fracture, perineal laceration and facial lacerations

8. Insofar as Ex.A7 is concerned, according to PW-2, the appellant has to take treatment in respect of pelvic fracture, perineal laceration and lacial lacerations and under Ex.A7, Care I Hospital estimated the treatment expenses to Rs.92,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that subsequent to issuance of Ex.A7, the appellant has taken treatment and she had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses but the sarne was not considered. Taking into con sideration of theevidence of PW-2 and the documentarl evidence, this Court is ol the considered view that 6 . .;:, , the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.75,0OO/- towards future medical expenses in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medica-l expenses

9. The record further discloses that the Tribunal awarded an amount ol Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony, which is very less. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for Rs.15,O0O/- towards pain and suffering, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal Admittedly, the appeilant initially admitted in K.G. Hospital, I Visakhapatnam and from there she u,as shilted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards transport charges, r,vhich is very less. Thus, the appellant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards transport charges in addition to the amount already awarded under the said head. The appellant filed medical bilis to a tune of Rs.66,141/-, however, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.40,000/- without assigning any reasons. Hence, this Court is of the considered that the appellant is entitled for Rs.66, 141/- towards medicai expenses as claimed by her. 1

10. The appellant was studying M.B.A. and due to the injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she lost one academic year. In such circumstances, the appellant is also entitled for I t an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the loss of academic year towards non-pecuniary damages in addition to the a-rnount of l Rs.1O,O00/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is a-lso entitled for Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, as per the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and anotherl. Thus, in all, the appellant IS entitled for Rs.3,79, 14 1 /-

11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.3,79,141/-, The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally. Respondent Nos. I and 2-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a period ol two months from the date of receipt ol a copy of this judgn-rent. On such deposit, the appellant is ' zo ra 1s; at.o az sc entitled to rvithdrar.r. the said amount u,ithout furnishing ar-ry o security. No costs. Misceilaneous petitions, if zrny pendin$. s;ha.ll stand clor-;ed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( TION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With Records if any) 2 One CC to SRl. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. R ANURAG, Standing Counsel for APSRTC IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies i I To PIT HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2016 ol 2014 ,.1 't It " r:" u u 'l --.J PAfr-,,, ,;2/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA L I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2016 OF 2014 Between: T. Sravanthi, Dio T.Kista Reddy Student R/o Plot no.79, Sector 12, M.V.P Colony, Ordinance Factory ...APPELLANT AND 'l . Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Vice Qhairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gajuvaka Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in OP.NO. 683 of 20'10 dated 30-9- 1 'l on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional 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 Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR APSRTC, for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed; 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.3,79,1411;

3. That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and several. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 corporation be and hereby directed to deposit I I I '"7 the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To PR '1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.2O16 of 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA iHF- S 03rPe?m ? * .S r: .r r.at , -- r/ ^ 7