Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1100 (AP)

Garapati Radha v. Tanga Venkata Rao

2023-07-18

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is respondent/APSRTC and the respondent is petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.636 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appellant filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.03.2009. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows : On 10.03.2009 the petitioner was proceeding to Kurnool in APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6696 and when the said bus reached near Cancer Hospital situated near Penchikalapadu village, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a lorry which was coming in opposite direction, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The respondent/APSRTC being the owner of the offending bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. The respondent/APSRTC filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident and he was not having valid licence at the time of accident, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6696? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC bus and, accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part granting an amount of Rs.5,87,254/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/APSRTC preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% p.a. is also exorbitant. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the petitioner relied on his self-testimony as P.W.1 and also Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report, Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC bus. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6, who are the doctors who treated him. On considering Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained two grievous and three simple injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.15,000/- towards simple injuries. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. On considering Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained two grievous and three simple injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.15,000/- towards simple injuries. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. P.W.2 deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 11.03.2009 and he was suffering from severe injury to right elbow and he underwent an operation. P.W.3 also deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was brought with a complaint of one injury to his right elbow forearm and he was initially treated in a local Hospital, Kurnool, and referred for special treatment to Aware Global Hospital, Hyderabad, and he treated the petitioner. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.A.7-medical bills filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.2,47,987/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. P.W.4-Dr.Ramesh deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 came to their hospital for follow-up treatment of injuries and he sustained an injury to his right upper limb in a road accident and initial treatment was given to him elsewhere. The petitioner was treated in their hospital from 13.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 and again from 10.07.2009 to 31.07.2009 and surgeries were done to him on 13.07.2009 and 20.07.2009 in which old rods were removed from the right upper limb and re-fixation of the un-united fractures was done. Based on the evidence of P.W.4 and medical bills, which is supported by the case sheets, an amount of Rs.86,724/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards follow-up treatment. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 16. The material on record reveals that the petitioner was readmitted into Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore on 29.01.2010 and got operation to his right ulna and he was discharged on 06.02.2010, which is supported by the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.A.13. On considering the said evidence, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.26,882/- towards further medical expenses. Therefore, the said finding given by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 17. On considering the said evidence, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.26,882/- towards further medical expenses. Therefore, the said finding given by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 17. The petitioner pleaded in his evidence that he has been suffering with disability of 50%, but the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 shows that it is confined to right upper limb only. It is settled principle that disability to a particular limb cannot be treated as disability to whole body. Therefore, on considering the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and Ex.A.14-disability certificate, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is suffering with disability of 5%, and by giving cogent reasons, since the petitioner is an employee, who is earning Rs.14,654/- p.m. in a Primary Health Center, an amount of Rs.1,23,093/- was awarded towards 5% permanent disability sustained by the petitioner including pain and suffering. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 18. The material on record reveals that the petitioner is working as Health Educator in Primary Health Centre, Kodumur. To substantiate the same, he got filed Ex.A.9-identity card issued by D.M. & H.O., Kurnool. He admitted that he did not produce his salary certificate, but he got examined P.W.6-Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kodumur, who received summons to cause production of leave and salary particulars of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2009. Ex.X.1-leave particulars of extract of service register of the petitioner and Ex.X.2-salary particulars of the petitioner clearly go to show that the petitioner is a permanent employee in Medical and Health Department. On considering Exs.X.1 and X.2, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.57,568/- towards loss of earnings of 210 days i.e., seven months @ Rs.8,224/- per month. Further, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards extra nourishment, medical, attendant and transport charges. In total, by giving cogent reasons, an amount of Rs.5,87,254/- was awarded towards compensation to the petitioner. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 19. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, since the accident occurred in the year 2009, therefore, the same has to be reduced from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. 20. 19. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, since the accident occurred in the year 2009, therefore, the same has to be reduced from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the decree and order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.636 of 2010 is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.