Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The A.P.S.R.T.C. vs P Praveen Kumar on 3 January, 2020
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1040 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has come before this Court by preferring the present appeal assailing the award dated 27.07.2012, passed in O.P.No.09 of 2009, whereunder liability is fixed as against it to pay compensation of Rs.8,64,516/- to the claimant therein together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation.
The grounds urged by the appellant-Corporation to assail the award under challenge are precisely stated as under:
i) The Corporation contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the respondent/claimant.
ii) Despite the denial of the claim made by the respondent/claimant by the appellant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running tutorials, and no evidence was adduced in this regard by him, the Tribunal granted compensation on guess work done by it.
iii) The evidence on record has not been appreciated in a proper perspective by the Tribunal and on account of the same, the wrong conclusion is arrived by it holding that the bus driver was at fault.
The respondent is the claimant in the O.P No.9 of 2009. His case as mentioned in the petition averments is that he was aged about 21 years by the date of accident and studying III year B.Tech (Mechanical) and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running tutorials. As per his version on 12.12.2007 at about 8.30 2 p.m, while he was going on a motor cycle bearing No.A.P.03 N- 5954 from Korlagunta towards R.T.C bus stand through Tirumala bye pass road, when he nearby TMR Kalyanamandapam, a cyclist came in his opposite direction, in order to avert the accident to him, he applied sudden brakes and lost control over his motor cycle and fell down, meanwhile a R.T.C bus bearing No.A.P-28-Z 51 of Tirumala Depot driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came there and dashed him and as the result of it, he received injuries to both his legs. Soon after the accident, his friend by name Sobhan Reddy reached the place of accident and shifted him to SVRRGG Hospital at Tirupati in '108' ambulance. The Station House Officer, Traffic Police Station, Tirupati registered a case in Crime No.154 of 2007 under Sections 337, 279 IPC and Section 134(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the bus driver.
The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 to prove his aforementioned contentions and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. He also examined Dr. Muthulalakshmi and marked Exs.A.4 and A.5 discharge summaries issued by MIOT Hospital, Chennai and bunch of medical bills, and produced his identity card and the driving license marked them as Exs.A.6 and A.7.
The Corporation has not examined any witnesses and that the evidence given by P.W.1 as regard to the manner of accident has not been disproved.
It is a fact that the traffic police at Tirupati, on thorough investigation of the case filed the charge sheet against the driver of the above mentioned bus under Sections 337, 279 IPC and Section 3 134(A) of Motor Vehicles Act before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati.
Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed an elaborate counter disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C bus. It was contended in the counter filed by the appellant - Corporation that when the bus was stopped near Korlagunta junction, passengers got down the bus while the bus was proceeding towards main bus stand after crossing Koregunta junction it was being driven slowly, meanwhile the petitioner/claimant came opposite to the bus in a wrong way and that the bus driver on noticing the petitioner coming in a wrong way turned the bus towards right side to give way to his motorcycle, meanwhile, breaks were applied by the petitioner suddenly and he fell down from his motorcycle. The motorcycle driven by the petitioner was touched to the bus, and thus, the petitioner sustained simple injuries and there was no fault on the part of the bus driver and that he was no way responsible for causing accident to the petitioner.
To prove the aforementioned assertions, no evidence was let in. Absolutely no endeavour was made by the Corporation to prove its contention that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and he was not responsible for occurrence of the accident in which the claimant received injuries.
Having taken note of the evidence given by the claimant whose evidence is corroborated by Exs.A.1 and A.2 wherefrom it is clear that the bus driver is responsible for causing the accident to him, the trial Court held that the claimant is able to prove his case 4 that due to negligent driving of the R.T.C bus by its driver, the accident in question took place.
In view of the above, there cannot be any hesitation for me to hold that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant corporation that due to own fault of the claimant, he met with the accident.
Coming to the other aspects raised by the appellant Corporation which are relating to the quantum of compensation are concerned, it is found from the contents of Ex.A.3 wound certificate that the petitioner sustained (i) lacerated wound measuring 12 cm x 5 cm into skin deep on the left thigh on the femoral triangle extending to muscle, (ii) laceration wound measuring 7 cm x 4 cm into skin deep over the lateral side of the right knee, (iii) laceration of size 8 cm x 3 cm into skin deep on the waist on the left side, (iv) abrasion on the lateral side of left thigh of 2 cm x 1 cm in size, and (v) abrasion measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the right eyebrow, and that the x-ray revealed that the petitioner sustained fracture pubic rami on both sides and fractures to mid shafts of both femurs and that the injuries 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and the remaining injuries were simple.
The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the contents Ex.A.3 wound certificate where from it is clear that the petitioner sustained four fracture injuries and three simple injuries awarded compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- towards pain and suffering.
Claim was by the petitioner for compensation of Rs.12,11,781.40 ps towards the medical and incidental expenditures such as transportation attendant charges etc. The 5 petitioner produced 189 bills before the Tribunal and out of them 180 were the medical bills and the remaining nine were the bills pertaining to transportation charges. Taking into consideration of the 180 medical bills produced by the claimant, the Tribunal took the view that only the amount of Rs.6,24,514/- was spent by the petitioner towards medical expenditure, accordingly awarded sum amount towards compensation under the head of medical expenditure.
Though none concerning to the bills produced for spending of amounts towards transportation charges, the Tribunal on appraising of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 wherefrom it is clear that the claimant took treatment in MIOT Hospital, Chennai by going there from his village, under the care and supervision of P.W.2, the Court below seems to have taken the view that awarding of Rs.20,000/- under the head of transportation charges is just and reasonable.
Considering the nature of injuries and the discomfort which the petitioner subjected due to fracture injuries sustained to pubic rami and fracture to mid shaft of femur, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to grant Rs.50,000/- towards compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation under the head of future medical expenditure as expending of any amount would become necessary as he has to under go surgeries in future for removal of rod inserted, this Court finds no perversity in the award impugned. In the opinion of this Court, the award under challenge needs no interference and the same to be affirmed.
6
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.03.01.2020.
Gk 7 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No.1040 OF 2013 03.01.2020 Gk