Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh ... vs Om Prakash Agarwal And Anr. on 12 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(2001)ACC401
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, aggrieved by the award passed in O.P. No. 373 of 1987 dated 30.3.1990 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam, wherein the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- towards compensation for the injures sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.5.1987.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: On 26.5.1987 the petitioner boarded an R.T.C. bus bearing No. AAZ 8466 at Kothagudem to go to Hyderabad and the petitioner sat on the back seat of the bus resting himself leaning over the body of the bus inside. The respondent No. 1 drove the bus at a high speed and even continued so when it was about to reach Enkur village. At that time a lorry was coming in the opposite direction visible to the respondent No. 1 from a long distance and that the respondent No. 1 did not slow down the speed and lost control and that the bus went towards right side from the middle of the road and grazed the oncoming lorry which was also coming at a high speed. As the rear right side of the bus, where the petitioner was resting inside keeping his right hand a little on the window, had grazed the oncoming lorry, the right hand of the petitioner was severely injured and resulted in heavy bleeding. The accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, i.e., the respondent No. 1. After the accident, the petitioner was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam, in the same bus and later he was shifted to Nizam Orthopaedic Hospital on 27.5.1987 and on the same day, the right hand was amputated above the joint. The petitioner remained in the hospital for one month and then discharged. At the time of the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner was an accountant for Agarwal Automobiles situated at Kothagudem and other agencies and used to earn Rs. 2,500/- per month. Thus the petitioner claimed Rs. 4,35,000/- towards compensation. The respondent No. 2, A.P.S.R.T.C. has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. The version of the respondent is that on seeing the lorry in the opposite direction, the respondent No. 1 took the bus to the extreme left of the road and was proceeding. The lorry passed very close to the bus coming on the right side of the road. After passing a few yards, the passengers in the bus shouted and that the respondent No. 1 immediately stopped the bus. The respondent No. 1 got down from the bus and saw a passenger (petitioner) who was sitting on the right side window, had lost his right hand, cut by the closely passing lorry. Therefore, it is due to the sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner in stretching his hand out of the window of the bus, that accident occurred, and that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation.
3. After appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal below held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, i.e., the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation and that the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- towards compensation to the claimant.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and it ought to have held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself, who travelled in the bus by stretching his hand outside the window of the bus and that he himself invited the accident and sustained injuries. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the principle laid down in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Dodda Somayajulu Sitaramamurty 1983 ACJ 44 (AP), wherein it is held that:
Negligence could be inferred by the applicability of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. If the accident by its very nature is more consistent with its being caused by negligence of the driver, than by the other causes, then the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. In such a case it is on the driver of the vehicle to explain as to how the accident occurred without negligence on his part. The driver has to show any specific cause not connoting negligence on his part or that he used all reasonable care expected of him.... The burden is on the driver to show that he had taken all reasonable care in driving the vehicle.
5. The evidence of the driver of the bus is that when he reached the outskirts of Enkur, the passengers raised alarm and shouted to stop the bus and by then the lorry came in the opposite direction and passed by the bus and that he stopped the bus and saw that the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the driver of the bus R.W. 1 that lie has not taken necessary care and caution towards the bus passengers while driving the bus. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is just and correct and the same is confirmed.
6. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is concerned, the Tribunal below while fixing the disability of the claimant at 50 per cent and taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier at 13.79 as the claimant was aged 40 years at the time of the accident, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,600/- towards loss of future earnings of the claimant. In my view, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future earnings is just and correct. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages; Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, and Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of past earnings for a period of six months. But I am inclined to award Rs. 50,000/- under all these heads. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 2,15,600/- (Rs. 1,65,600/- + Rs. 50,000/-) towards compensation.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs. 43,000/- to Rs. 2,15,600/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. But in the circumstances of the case, no costs.