The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vulasa Asha Shiva Jyothi

This appeal is filed by ApsRTC, aggrieved by the order and Decree rlated 07.02.2020 in M.V.o.p.No.47o of 2012 passed by the Motor A:cident claims Tribunal-cum-chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad (for short,,the Tribunal,,).

2. Fc,r convenience and crarity, the parties herein are referred to as they \vere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Tl^e case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 11.04.2()10, while the petitioner was travelling from Guntur to Nalgond. along with her brother in ApsRTC Bus. bearing No.Ap- 282-5949, after the bus crossed Miryalaguda town at about 1o:00 p.rn., the, fl1lvsr of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, tried to overtake another vehicle which was proceeding ahead and thereby dashed against the lorry in the opposite direction, due to which the petitioner and other passeng€rs received multiple injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and from there she was admitted in yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. she incurred huge expenses and thus, sought a compensation of Rs.40,00,OOO/-. .,/' I ,1 I +' I i I ETD,J MACMA No.106-2021 !: 2

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident' &ge' avocationandincomeofthepetitioner.Itisfurthercontendedthat thepetitionisbadfornon-joinderofnecessarypartiesi.e.,the ownerandinsureroflorry.Itisfurthercontendedthatthe accidentoccurredduetotherashandnegligentdrivingofthelorry driver and that the driver of the bus was not at all negligent'

5. Based on the above rival contentions' the Tribunal has framed the following tssues:- Whether the pleaded accident had ocanrred resulting in i;j;;;; to in"'p.tttiJ""i-i' a"tn shiu.a Juothi' due to rash and nestigent anurig";RiC'"; bearing iegistration No' AP' 2875948, bg its driuer? Whether the petitioner is entitled' to any compensation'! t?: at what quantum o,Jd' *h;;i the tiabilitg of the iespondent? To uhat relief ? 1

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3 and.gotmarkedExs.AltoA2l.onbehalfoftherespondents,RWl was examined and Ex'B1 was marked' T. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs'12,59,4Og1-' Aggrieved by the sarne' the present appeal is preferred by the RTC'

8. Heard Sri K' Srinivas Rao' learned counsel for TSRTC' No l I \ \ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.106 2021

9. Lr:arned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant amounts under various heads towards compensation. He further argued that the re is no negligence of RTC driver in the occurrence of the accidenr- and that the petitioner has not lea{ any evidence with regard to the medical expenses and has also not filed any proof of income, but claims to be a Lecturer. He further argued that the Tribunal has believed the version of the petitioner without any proof and has granted huge compensation. He further argued that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very high @ 9o/o and, prayed to reduce the same to Z.Soh.

10. Bersed on the above rival submission, this court frames the followingg points for consideration:-

1. wltether there taas no negligence of d.riuer of RTC Bus bearing No. Ap- 282-5948 in the occur-rence of the accid.ent?

2. whether the compensation granted. by the Tibunal is just and. reasonable?

3. whether the order and. Decree passed. bg the Tribunal need. any interference?

4. To what relief? 1 1. Point No.1:- a) The contention of the appellants counsel is that there was no negligen<:e of RTC driver in causing the accident. In support of their contention, they got examined RWl. RWl is the driver of the bus whic,h was involved in the accident. He deposed that he tried ETD,J ,2-,\ MACMA No.106-2021 4 toavoidtheaccident,butthattheaccidentoccurredduetorash and negligence of the lorry driver' tn his cross examination' RWl has admitted that the b) DepartmentalEnquirywasconductedagainsthiminrespectofthe accident, but has not fiLed any report' He stated that he is not tn possession of the said report' Though' RW1 has stated that he gave complaint against the driver of the lorry, no copy of such compiaint is filed. c) A perusal of Ex'A1/FIR and Ex'A2lCharge Sheet reveals that thecomplaintwaslodged.againstRWlwhoisthedriverofthebus andchargesheetisfiledafterthoroughinvestigationagainstthe driverofthebus,observingthattheaccidentoccurredduetothe rashandnegligentd'rivingofthebusdriver.Thereisnoaverment astotherashandnegligenceoflorrydriver. d)Itispertinenttomentionhereinthatthepetitioneristhe injuredwitnessandherevidenceiscreditworthy.Shehasfiled busticketund'erEx.A3,whichshowsthatshetravelledbytheRTC BusbearingNo.AP-282-Sg4Sonthefatefuldaywhich.metwiththe accid'ent.Shehasstated,thattheaccidentoccurredduetotherash andnegligentdrivingofthedriverofRTCBus.Furtherinaddition toit,Ex.AlandA2revealsthattheaccidentoccurredduetothe rashandnegligenceoftheRTCdriver.ThoughRWlisexamined, I I lb, \ 5 ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021 nothin6; could be elicited from him to show that there was rash and negligence on part of the lorry driver. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent d.riving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-2gZ-Sg4g. Pr>int No.1 is answered accordingly. L2. PISINT NO.2: a) PtMl has stated that she sustained fracture injuries in the acciden'- and has undergone treatment at yashoda Hospital, Hyderatrad. In support of her case, she has filed Ex.A4/outpatient ticket which reveals that, initially she was taken to Area Hospital. It is fu'ther mentioned in Ex.A4 that she is referred to higher centre. Ex.A9 is the Discharge summary, which shows that the petitione:r was admitted on r2.o4.2o]o, in yashoda hospital surgery was performed on L9.o4.2010 and was discharged on 11.o5.2()1o that means she was hospitalized for a period of one month fcrr the treatment of her injuries. b) Ex.A9 further reveals the details of the treatment given to the petitioner during her stay at the hospital. She was diagnosed with left fronto temporal contusion and right fronto temporal scalp avulsion. Ex.A10 is the set of medicar bils which incrudes the Final Bill of Y.shoda Hospital for Rs.5,7o,6lsl- and she has also filed certain other bilis to an extent of Rs.56,796/-. Hence, the same is I ETD,J MACMA No.106-2021 l\ti 6 granted towards medical bills which comes to a total of Rs.6,27,4O91-. c) In addition to the said expenditure, she must have incurred incidental exPenses, certain amount towards transportation' attendant charges, extra nourishment etc'' It is alreadY discussed Suprathatsheunderwentinpatienttreatmentforaboutaperiodof one month. d)Pw2isaNeuroSurgeonatsunShineHospitaland previouslyheworkedatYashodaHospitalasaNeuroSurgeon.His evidencerevealsthatpetitionerwasadmittedonl2.o4.2oloin YashodaHospitalandthathehastreatedher,shewasshiftedto INCUandEmergencyintubationandionotropicsweregiven,she wasoperatedon|g.o4.2ol0forlefttemporalcraniotomyexcision ofleftfrontotemporalcontusionandclosureofrightfronto temporal scalP laceration' e) PW3 is the Consultant Plastic Surgeon who treated the petitioner at Yashoda Hospital. His evidence reveals that petitioner wasexaminedbyteamofdoctorscomprisingofNeuroSurgeon, GastroenterologistortJaopedicSurgeon,CardiologistandPlastic Surgeon. He stated that the plastic surgery was done for primary repairandskingraftingandthatthepetitionerwasadvisedwith followuptreatmentonoutpatientbasisatthetimeofdischarge. t \ \ ,i 7 ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021 0 Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of pw2 and 3 to dislc,dge their evidence. By considering the entire phase of recovery by the petitioner for about a period of three years, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.1,o0,0oo/- tor,r,ards incidental expenses g) cr>nsidering the evidence on record i.e., the injuries as stated by PWl to 3 and as disclosed by the discharge summary and other medical record filed by the petitioner, it is opined that the petitionr:r must have underwent acute pain and suffering because of the sa.id injuries, till she has recovered from the same. Therefore, an amc,unt of Rs.1,00,0oo /- is awarded towards pain and sufferinSl. h) Pv/l has stated that she used to work as a Lecturer. In support of the same, she has fired Ex.A11/Salary certificate issued by Ramrr Devi college of Education. Ex.Al1 is dated 2g.ro.2oLo which c.iscloses that she was working as a Lecturer in the Department of Education from 1L.o4.2oog to 1 1.o4.2o10 and that her gross salary is Rs.12,L4ol- per month. She has also filed certificar:es in support of her quarification. Ex.Al2/ssc certificate, Ex.A13/:.ntermediate Education, Ex.A14/Graduation certificate of B.sc and Ex.A15 is the certificate in Bachelor of Education, Ex.A16/lM.sc certificate showing that the petitioner has qualified : i. I I , I ETD,J MACMA No.106-2021 F\ 8 inM.ScMathematics.Thus,allthesecertificatesrevealthatthe petitioner possesses the necessary qualification to work as a lecturer and the salary certificate further discloses that she was earningasalaryofRs.L2,l4ol-atRamaDeviCollegeofEducation. i)Thecontentionoftheappellantcounselisthattheauthorof thedocumentisnotexaminedandhence'thesamecannotbe considered. The petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications to work as a 1ecturer and she is aged. around 3o years. Thus, her age and qualification probabilizes the contention of the petitioner that sheused.toworkasalecturerandhencethesalaryasdisclosed flomEx.Allistakenintoconsideration,thusherincomeis assessed as Rs. t2,OOOl- per month' The period of treatment as disclosed from the discharge Summary is one ,,,o,,.n as inpatient antt it is also elicited from PW2 and 3 that she was advised with follow uP treatment' j)ItiselicitedfromPW2thatthepetitionerhastakenaround threeyearstorecoverandwasunderhisfollowuptreatment.No question was posed to him on this aspect during cross examination.Dependingonthenatureofinjuriessustainedbythe petitioner and the medical record filed by her and also by taking intoconsiderationtheevidenceofPw2,itisheldthatshewasout of work for at reast three years. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly t I I \ 9 ETD,J MACMA No.106_2021 granted loss of earnings for 36 months which comes up to Rs.4,32,0ool- (36 x l2,ooo/-). The Tribunal has rightly considered all the :roints and has awarded compensation. Therefore, there is no infirrnity in the orders passed by the Tribunal, hence the same is found to be just and reasonable.

13. Point No.3: a) In view of the finding arrived at point Nos.1 and.2, it is held that the order and Decree of the Tribunal dated oz.o2.2o2o need not be interfered with regard to liability and quantum of compenr;ation. with regard to the rate of interest, the grievance of the appe:llant is that the tribunal has granted a high rate of interest i.e., @9o/o. b) In Jad.ant saroja Bqi versus Ghule Naga Rcro qnd, Anothertl a coordinate Bench of this High court has granted interest @ 7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount of compens,ation. c) rn Bo,ndauath Mangla and Another versus Band.aaath suresh ,tnd others2 and Nqtionar rnsurance compa.ng Limited. versus. M. venkoltesutolntlu and. other.{; also interest @ z.s% per annurm was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. '2Oz2Scc()nline TS 606 'zo2z Sccr)nline TS 1095 r zoz: ScC online TS I170 I I 10 ETD,J MACMA No.106-2021 d)Intlnitedlnsurqncecompo/ngLimited|fersus.Bollqm Lingaiaha,; when the Tribunal has granted. rate of interest @ 9Yo perannum,theHighCourthasmodifiedtherateofinterestto T.SYoperannumfromthedateofpetitiontil]rrea|ization' e) A Division Bench of this High court in National Insurance CompangLimitedVersusJagadishPraJapat;.1s;hasgranted 7.5 Yo per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this court 0 has been consistently granting interest @ 7 'Soh on the compenqation that is awarded in such cases' g)ThereforetheSameisawardedinthiscasealso.Thus,the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7 '5o/o' Point No.3 is answered accordingly' L4, Point No.4:- In the result, M.A.C.M'A filed by the APSRTC is partly allowed'modifyingtheOrderandDecreedatedoT.o2.2o2oin M.V.o.P.No.47oof2o12passedbytheMotorAccidentClaims Tribunal-cum-Chief Jud'ge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by reducing the rate of-interest from 9o/o to 7.5o/o per annum from the ) ) o zozqscc online TS 915 t zozqscc online TS 2050 I 11 ETD,J MACMA No.106 2021 date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-TsRTc is directed to deposil- the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the respondent-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securit5r, as per their respectivr: shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand clo:;ed. /TRUE COPY'/ SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, t

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil C)ourts, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KRISHNA MOHAN SIKHARAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/gh ' ';i ':-*ir:re-51 i, r i,s I'i HIGH COURT DATED:041O212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.106 ot 2O21 s ( : I (-) 3 0 JAit 2020 * ;'... ....,._...... l.'i PARTLY ALLOVUING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b * ?6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 106 OF 2021 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director (presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada. Krishna District AND ...APPELLANT Vulasa Asha Shiva Jyothi, D/o. Shiva Kumar. Age : 29 years, Occ. Lecturer (Presently Nil), R/o. Flat No.4/26, Bahar Sahara Estates. Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the order and decree dated 0710212020 in M.V.O.P.No.470/2012, on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge City Civil Courts Hyderabad. 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. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate appeared Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed. 2 That the rate of intere.st reducing from gyo to 7.ilyo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3' That the interest for the period of deray, if any, be and is hereby forfeited. 4' The r\ppellant-TSRTC be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amottnt with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment artei oeouctirg ih; amount if any already depo:;ited. 5' That the Respondent claimant on such deposit, be and is hereby entiled to withdraw the said amount without furnisning aiyi'security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrue Copyll To 1 2 !;r.e { 9 t9 r_Acci d en ts. C I a i m s Tri b u n a I _Cu m _Th e City Cirril Courts Hyderabid Two Ct) Copies. GE SD/- MOHD. ISMATL TY REGTSTRAR s N OFFICER bf the Chief Judge i l l l l I i i l, a"? HIGH COURT DATED:04t0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.106 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS