Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 156 (AP)

APSRTC v. Yekkaragada Venkata Narasinga Rao

2023-01-19

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 1173 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short “the tribunal”) the appellants/respondents 2 and 3 preferred this appeal questioning the award and the liability fastened on them. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) r/w 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that took place on 17.04.2011. 4. The claimant’s case is that on 17.04.2011 at about 11.45 AM, when the claimant, along with his wife going to his house on his bike, when he reached the traffic signal area at the police control room, one R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-1922, Route No. 60 ‘C’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending bus’) being driven by its driver, i.e. 1st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from Poorna Market towards the Civil Defence Junction side and dashed the claimant's bike, due to which, the claimant and his wife fell on the road. He received injuries on the left leg. 5. 1st Respondent, who is the offending bus driver, remained ex-parte. 6. The 3rd Respondent adopted the 2nd Respondent filed counter, wherein the respondents denied the manner and mode of the accident, the treatment and expenses incurred by the claimant, the source of income of the claimant, the aspect of fracture sustained by the claimant and the claim of the claimant. The respondents submitted that the 1st Respondent was driving the offending bus when the offending bus reached barrack junction, and the driver stopped the bus as there was a red signal. At that time, the motorcyclist came from the left side of the bus at very high speed, dashed against the front bumper and fell, and there was negligence on the part of the motorcyclist as he dashed the stationed bus. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he got examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 8. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he got examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e. the 1st Respondent and the claimant sustained injuries in the accident and awarded compensation Rs. 2,69,400/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No. 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties. 10. Learned counsel for appellants/respondents contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding abnormal compensation; the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant while driving on the road. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. Now the point for determination is: (I) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent? (II) Whether the compensation amount awarded is just and reasonable? POINT NO. I: 13. After careful reading of the material on record, this Court is of the view that there is no serious dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claimant was examined as PW-1, who narrated in his evidence about the manner of an accident. According to his evidence that on the date of the accident at about 11.45 AM, the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from Poorna market towards Civil Defence Junction, when he reached the traffic signal point at Police Control room, 1st respondent driver dashed the motorcycle of the claimant bearing registration No. AP-30-C-6370, which he was riding and his wife was the pillion rider. As a result, both fell on the road and sustained injuries. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his evidence. The evidence of PW-1 concerning sustaining injuries is not disputed, and it is also established by Ex.A2-Wound and Ex.A6-Disability certificates. 14. As a result, both fell on the road and sustained injuries. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his evidence. The evidence of PW-1 concerning sustaining injuries is not disputed, and it is also established by Ex.A2-Wound and Ex.A6-Disability certificates. 14. The 1st Respondent has not disputed the case of the claimant that he sustained injuries in the accident. However, it is the contention of the 2nd Respondent that the accident occurred only as the claimant tried to jump the red signal and proceeded further and that the claimant hit the bus the rear bumper of the bus. The respondent-R.T.C has not examined any witnesses to prove the manner of the accident as contended by it. Despite service of notice, the 1st Respondent had not chosen to contest the claim petition. As already observed in the claim petition, it is averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent. 15. The evidence of PW-1 withstood the test of cross-examination, and the respondents could not shake his evidence. There was no doubt to cast on the veracity of the witness. 16. As seen from the record, the claimant also relied on an Ex.A4-Attested certified copy of the charge sheet. No evidence is placed by the respondents to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In a decision reported in K. Rajani vs. M. Satyanarayana Goud and Others, 2015 ACJ 797 the Hon’ble High Court is pleased to observe that: “When the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be totally incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false.” 17. In the case of Bheemla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 18. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 18. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus without conducting a proper investigation. Also, it is difficult to assume that the Police Officer Could fabricate a case against the Respondent in the absence of evidence. 19. In a proceeding under the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. Documents having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is now well settled that even F.I.R. or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident and for concluding. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence and the accident's mode and manner of happening. 20. It emanates from the record that the respondents have not chosen to examine its driver to prove that the claimant also contributed to the accident to some extent. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. When the respondents/A.P.S.R.T.C. contends that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal, based on which the Tribunal is expected to give its conclusion. The Tribunal has accepted the claimant's case regarding the observation made by the Investigating Officer about the manner of the accident and the charge sheet filed against the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. causing the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus to be responsible for the said accident. As already observed, the contents of the charge sheet also support the claimant's case regarding the accident. The appellants placed no material to show that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of the offending bus. 21. As already observed, the contents of the charge sheet also support the claimant's case regarding the accident. The appellants placed no material to show that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of the offending bus. 21. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver holds good. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT NO. II: 22. It is the evidence of PW-1 that he sustained a fracture of the Tibial lateral condyle with haematoma in the left knee and leg, and he developed compartmental syndrome on 18.04.2011. Subsequently, he underwent an operation and spent Rs. 90,000/- for the treatment due to the accident. 23. In the evidence of PW-1, he got treatment at Seven Hills hospital for one day. Later he was shifted to Venkata Ramana Hospital. The claimant has produced medical bills-Ex.A5 to show the amounts spent by him. Based on the medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 90,000/-. As seen from the cross-examination of PW-1, the Respondent has not disputed spending such an amount for medical expenses. The only suggestion to PW-1 in the cross-examination is that he is entitled to medical reimbursement from his Bank. It is not suggested that he claimed the amounts spent for medical expenses from the Bank. 24. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards injuries sustained by him. It is the case of the claimant that he is working as a Cashier in the Bank. The respondents do not dispute the fact. It is suggested to PW-1 in the cross-examination that he get medical reimbursement from the Bank. When such a suggestion is given regarding the claimant's employment, it is not understandable why the Tribunal suspected it. The Tribunal observed that in the absence of the evidence, he could not be considered a Bank employee earning Rs. 39,900/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the said version only on the ground that he had not placed any evidence on record. When the evidence of PW-1 regarding his employment is not disputed, suggestions to PW-1 in the cross-examination also show that he is a bank employee; the Tribunal is supposed to believe his employment. 39,900/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the said version only on the ground that he had not placed any evidence on record. When the evidence of PW-1 regarding his employment is not disputed, suggestions to PW-1 in the cross-examination also show that he is a bank employee; the Tribunal is supposed to believe his employment. The evidence of PW-1 shows that he could not go to his duty for 52 days, lost 104 days of leave salary, and took treatment in Venkata Ramana Hospital from 18.04.2011 to 16.05.2011. The said evidence of PW-1 is not disputed. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, it has not granted compensation for loss of earnings though he claimed that he got a monthly salary of Rs. 39,900/- and the other side did not dispute it. 25. But the Tribunal has considered the claimant as a non-earning member and granted Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings. It clearly shows that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence of PW-1, which is undisputed by the other side. The claimant has not examined the doctor to prove the Ex.A6 disability certificate, in which the disability is assessed at 20%. The Tribunal granted compensation for permanent disability at Rs. 1,40,400/-. The cross-examination shows that the respondents have not disputed the version of PW-1 regarding disability. Though the disability caused to the claimant may not affect his earnings, the Tribunal ought to have granted such an amount for loss of amenities. 26. After considering the entire material on record, though the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record while fixing the compensation amount, this Court views that at any stage of imagination, it cannot be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and excessive. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges, transport charges, and loss of amenities. 27. The Tribunal has also not considered the evidence of PW-1, which is undisputed by the respondents regarding the employment of PW-1. Had the said evidence of PW-1 been considered, the Tribunal could have awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of earnings, but it awarded only Rs. 9,000/-. 28. Considering the disability as noticed by the Tribunal, it could have awarded a reasonable amount towards the loss of amenities instead of granting such an amount under the head of disability. Had the said evidence of PW-1 been considered, the Tribunal could have awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of earnings, but it awarded only Rs. 9,000/-. 28. Considering the disability as noticed by the Tribunal, it could have awarded a reasonable amount towards the loss of amenities instead of granting such an amount under the head of disability. After carefully appreciating the material on record, this Court views that it cannot be said that the Tribunal awarded an excess amount at any stretch of the imagination. Though the Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation, it is supposed to have awarded such compensation amount towards attendant charges, transportation charges, extra nourishment charges, loss of earnings and amenities. 29. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal, nor do I see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. 30. Accordingly, the appeal, devoid of merits, is dismissed without costs. The order dated 05.08.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 1173 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby confirmed. 31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are pending shall stand closed.