Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, vs Ummadi Ravi on 16 August, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2184 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.217 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, granting compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- to the claimant therein and making the Road Transport Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (for short, "the Corporation"), to pay such amount to him together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation and the proportionate costs thereon, the present appeal is filed by the Corporation.
The arguments of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation are as follows:
His first contention is that though there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No.A.P.10-Z-8631 and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the car bearing No.A.P-31-W-7462, in which the claimant travelled at the relevant point of time, the Corporation was wrongly held liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- to the claimant.
His second contention is that as there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which the claimant travelled, the owner and the insurer of the car are the necessary parties, since the owner and the insurer of the car are not added as parties to the petition, the Court below ought to have dismissed the claim petition.2
The third contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation is that the reliance is placed heavily on the contents of the F.I.R registered by the police, by the Court below. The Court below ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 whose evidence is self explanatory and that the evidence adduced by him insofar as the disability though has not been proved by examining the Member of the Medical Board, the same is relied on by the Court below for passing of the award as against the respondent-Corporation.
Since this being the prime contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, the entire evidence on record is appreciated.
The respondent Sri Ummadi Ravi is the claimant in O.P.No.217 of 2007. His version as narrated in his claim statement is that he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was doing cloth business. It is asserted by him in his pleadings that on 22.03.2006, while he along with two others were proceeding to Ananthapur from Proddatur in a car bearing No.A.P.31-W-7462, on their business purpose, when the car reached near Muchukota Kanuma, it was being driven with normal speed on left side of the road, during that time an A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.A.P.10-Z-8631, which was driven by its driver by a rash and negligent manner came opposite to the car with high speed without blowing horn dashed the car. As a result of it, the claimant and other inmates including the driver sustained injuries. A complaint was lodged by the car driver in Muchukota Police Station under Section 338 of IPC. It has been further asserted by the claimant in his pleading that in the aforementioned accident he 3 sustained fracture injury to right arm and immediately after the accident he was shifted to a private hospital at Ananthapur and there surgery was conducted for fixation of plates and screws in his right fore arm. He took treatment in a private hospital at Anathapur up to 27.02.2006. After he was discharged from the private hospital at Anthapur, he took treatment in various other hospitals at Proddatur and Kadapa and incurred expenditure of Rs.25,000/- towards treatment, medicine, extra nourishment and transportation charges and since he was advised by the doctor, to undertake a further surgery for removal of rods and plates from the facture right forearm for which he had to incur further amount of Rs.30,000/-. It also asserted by him that he was getting income of Rs.75,000/- per annum through business and he was an income tax assessee. Due to fracture injury received to his right forearm, he is unable to carry any weights as grip in the hand is lost and thus he has become incapable of attending to any work with his right hand.
In the counter filed by the respondent-Corporation, it was asserted that the car was dashed to the oil tank of the bus due to the negligent driving of its driver. Despite the precautionary measures taken by the driver of the R.T.C bus to avert the accident, the car hit the bus due to inability of its driver to control it. The amount claimed by the claimant under various heads is highly exorbitant and excessive and the claimant is not entitled to get compensation from the Corporation as the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the car by its driver.
During the course of trial before the Court below, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Exs.A.1 to A.7. 4 The Court below taking into consideration of the evidence of the claimant and the documents produced by him awarded compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- and directed the Corporation to pay the said compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation together with proportionate costs thereon.
Feeling aggrieved by the award so passed, the present appeal is filed by the Corporation and that I have mentioned the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation in the preceding paras disputing its liability to pay compensation.
The Corporation has not examined any witnesses to prove its plea of defence that the driver of the car in which the claimant travelled along with others was responsible for occurrence of the accident dated 23.02.2006, in which the petitioner sustained fracture injury to his right forearm. The Court below on thorough appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 whose evidence is supported by Exs.A.1 to A.3, has recorded the finding that the accident in which claimant sustained injury was caused by the driver of the R.T.C bus bearing No.A.P.10-Z-8631. The respondent Corporation without production of any evidence in support of its plea that the driver of the car is responsible for occurrence of the accident, he has come with the contention that the owner and the insurer of the car are necessary parties to the petition and due to their non implementation, petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having gone through the evidence of P.W.1 whose evidence is supported by Exs.A.1 to A.3, this Court finds no substantial 5 material to find fault with the finding recorded by the Court below as against the driver of the R.T.C bus. Since it has been proved by the claimant that the driver of the R.T.C bus was negligent, by examining himself as P.W.1 and by marking Exs.A.1 to A.3, there cannot be any hesitation for this Court to disagree with the contention of the appellant Corporation that the owner and the insurer of the car bearing No.A.P.31-W-7462, are necessary parties.
Coming to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation insofar as the reliance placed by the Court below on evidence of P.W.1 whose evidence according to him is self explanatory and that the Court below has been carried away by his evidence to award the compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- which is on higher side is concerned, P.W.1 is the injured in the accident dated 23.02.2006, having received injuries in the said accident and laid the claim as against the A.P.S.R.T.C for compensation he has given evidence before the Court below as a witness and produced Ex.A.2 wound certificate.
The Court below after going through the contents of Ex.A.2 wound certificate which is issued by the Orthopaedic Centre at Anthapur, noticed that the claimant received one grievous injury i.e fracture to the right forearm and for correction of the said facture, plates were fixed. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, and the trauma which the claimant is subjected due to the fracture injury he received to right forearm, the Court below has granted the compensation of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The 6 compensation so awarded in respect of a grievous injury appears to be reasonable and fair.
The Court below has take note of the contents of Exs.A.5 and 6 medical reports for granting of compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of the medical expenditure and treatment.
I do not feel that the evidence of the petitioner alone is taken into consideration to assess the annual income at Rs.74,000/- before assessing the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.74,000/-. The documents produced by him viz., the income tax returns of the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, are scrutinised closely and then, only his annual income is assessed at Rs.74,000/- per annum. The fact that the claimant was doing cloth business prior to his involvement in the accident has not been disproved. On the other hand, the documents produced by him themselves established that he was getting income of Rs.74,000/- per annum through business.
The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board at Kadapa which is marked as Ex.A.4 has not been taken into consideration by the Court below as no x-ray film is produced. Though no substantial material is produced by the appellant Corporation disproving the disability certificate, the Court below has assessed the disability at 10% due to failure of the claimant to file the x-ray film and in that way of the matter the liability of the Corporation is minimised and the compensation of Rs.1,18,400/- is awarded to the claimant under the head of loss of earnings.
This Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the award passed by the Court below wherein compensation of 7 Rs.1,41,000/- is awarded to the claimant in respect of fracture injury to right forearm for which he needs to undergo further surgery for removal of the plates fixed in it. Therefore, under no circumstances, it can be said that the compensation awarded by the Court below is on higher side.
In the light of the above said discussion, this Court finds that the appeal filed by the Corporation as against the award in M.V.O.P.No.217 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.16.08.2019 Gk 8 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI 32 M.A.C.M.A.No.2184 OF 2013 16.08.2019 Gk