Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 203 (AP)

Pithani Venkata Rao S/o. Veeranna v. Kondra Babu Rao S/o. Laxmana Rao

2024-02-07

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, leaned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC/Respondent No.2 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Order and Decree dated 17.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The petition was filed under Section 166 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.10.2007. 5. The case of the claimant is that he is working as a driver in APSRTC; on 21.10.2007 at about 8.40 PM while he was driving RTC bus bearing registration No.AP11 Z 2570 coming from Rajahmundry towards Kakinada; he reached the place of accident i.e., Uppara colony of Dowleswaram; another RTC bus bearing registration No.AP28 Z 1766 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner; the said bus dashed the bus driven by the claimant; as a result, the claimant and other persons travelling in the bus sustained injuries; the claimant was shifted to the District Hospital, Rajahmundry and POP bandage was applied to his right leg and right hand; he was shifted to Raja Hospital, Rajahmundry for better management of the case; surgery was conducted on 26.10.2007 to the right leg; he was discharged on 18.11.2007; later, plastic surgery was conducted to the right leg; he joined in SAI Hospital at Rajahmundry on 10.04.2008 and discharged on 15.04.2008; the claimant spent nearly Rs.80,000/- for treatment; the claimant became disabled due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the claimant filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 6. The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the claimant; there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1, who driven the offending vehicle; the claim of the claimant is excessive. 7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bearing No.AP28 Z 1766, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? 7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bearing No.AP28 Z 1766, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, four (04) witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4, respectively and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 documents. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was placed on record on behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 9. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. This finding was not challenged either by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle or by the respondent No.2/APSRTC. 10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence awarded several amounts, which are as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of amenities 30,000-00 2. Pain and Suffering 47,000-00 3. Loss of earnings 11,300-00 4. Medical expenditure 41,100-00 5. Extra nourishment 5,000-00 6. Transport and Attendant charges 3,000-00 Total: 1,37,400-00 11. Therefore, the Tribunal, in all awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum towards just compensation. 12. The claimant filed the appeal challenging the above amount awarded by the learned Tribunal contending that it is not a just compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the evidence on record would establish that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident, he was removed from service and therefore, he lost his employment, and therefore, suffered loss of future earnings on account of disability suffered by him; But, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and thereby, failed to award just compensation. 14. The learned counsel representing respondent No.2/APSRTC would submit that the claimant was working on contract basis in the respondent No.2/APSRTC and considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-towards discomfort and Rs.11,300/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and also awarded other amounts towards medical treatment, extra-nourishment, transport and attendant charges, pain and suffering and therefore, the Tribunal awarded just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Order and Decree of the learned Tribunal does not require any modification. 15. 15. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, in M.V.O.P. No.376 of 2008 vide Order and Decree dated 17.08.2012 is a just compensation in the circumstances of the case and does it warrants interference any of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 16. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was working as driver in the respondent No.2/APSRTC at the time of accident. The evidence of S.Murali Krishna (P.W.4), Depot Manager of APSRTC, Kakinada would establish that the claimant was appointed as a driver on contract basis in Ravulapalem Depot vide Order dated 29.10.2010 issued by the General Manager, Rajahmundry and the respondent No.2/APSRTC organization issued Ex.X3 proceedings refusing to regularize the services of the claimant on the ground that he was medically unfit due to road traffic accident and accordingly, Ex.A7, Proceedings were issued terminating the services of the claimant, as he was medically unfit. This would establish that the claimant though, he is medically fit for regularization prior to the date of accident, he was not regularized subsequent to the accident, as he became medically unfit due to the injuries sustained in the impugned accident. Meaning thereby, he lost his employment and also an opportunity for regularization as a driver in the respondent No.2/APSRTC organization. 17. The evidence of Dr. N.V.Narasimha Rao (P.W.3) would show that he was admitted in Raja Hospital, Rajahmundry during the period from 25.10.2007 to 18.11.2007 and operation was conducted to the right knee to repair of patellar tendon fracture and on account of the same, the claimant would have difficulty in performing his duty which he was doing prior to the injury. Therefore, the evidence on record leads to conclusion that now, the claimant became unfit to work as a driver on account of the fracture to the right knee and the same is the reason for not regularizing his services in the respondent No.2/APSRTC organization and same is also the reason of his removal from service as a driver from the respondent No.2/APSRTC organization. Hence, as rightly contended, the claimant suffered loss of future earnings on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, due to which he is disabled and became unfit to work as a driver. Hence, as rightly contended, the claimant suffered loss of future earnings on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, due to which he is disabled and became unfit to work as a driver. In the light of said factual matrix and factum of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 356. the claimant can be awarded compensation under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, which was not awarded by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, no evidence was placed by the respondent No.2/APSRTC showing that the claimant was provided with any alternative employment or that he was getting income by doing alternative employment. 18. It is pertinent to note down that the learned Tribunal rendered the Judgment in August, 2012. The Hon’ble Apex Court rendered the celebrated Judgment of Raj Kumar case during October, 2010. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal has lost sight of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and did not consider the matter in the right perspective as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court for awarding compensation in a case of sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the order and decree of the learned Tribunal requires interference by this Court. 19. In the light of foregoing discussion, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation amount under the head of ‘loss of future earnings’ on account of permanent disability. The income of the deceased prior to the date of accident was Rs.3,740/-per month as driver, admittedly. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was ’42 years’. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Vera and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 the applicable multiplier for the persons in the age group of ‘41-45 years’ is ‘14’. Therefore, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability is Rs.6,28,320/- (i.e., Rs.3,740 x 12 x 14). 20. While coming to other amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and trauma as a consequent of injuries. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.11,300/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. 20. While coming to other amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and trauma as a consequent of injuries. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.11,300/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. The learned Tribunal, considering the medical bills produced by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.41,100/- towards medical expenditure. The learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that these amounts shall remain intact. 21. The other amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.30,000/- towards discomfort and difficulty, probably under the head of loss of amenities. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar case, when 100% amount is awarded under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, no amount can be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Therefore, it shall be excluded from the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the total amount entitled by the claimant is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Permanent Disability 6,28,320-00 2. Pain and Suffering 47,000-00 3. Loss of earnings 11,300-00 4. Medical expenditure 41,100-00 5. Extra nourishment 5,000-00 6. Transport and Attendant charges 3,000-00 Total: 7,35,720-00 22. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,35,720/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) towards just compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him. 23. The claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount as per Section 171 of the Act. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum. Considering the prevailing rate of interest and in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)., this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal and it shall remain intact. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 24. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3205 of 2012 is liable to be ‘partly allowed’. 25. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)., this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal and it shall remain intact. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 24. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3205 of 2012 is liable to be ‘partly allowed’. 25. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Partly Allowed’ modifying the Order and Decree dated 17.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,35,720/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.1,37,400/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 26. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within eight (08) months from the date of the Judgment and in the event of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded and the balance amount shall be deposited within the above said period. 27. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.