Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1196 (AP)

APSRTC v. Gandlaparthi Thimmareddy Thimmareddy

2025-11-24

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 29.07.2024, in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2019 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. 2. The appellant is the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is the claimant and the respondent No.2 is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. Since the respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, he is shown as ‘not necessary party’ in the appeal in its cause title. 3. The facts stated in the claim petition are briefly as follows:- On 05.03.2018 at about 12.00 noon, the claimant and his wife were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AA-9841 from their village to Ananthapuramu. When they reached near the place of accident, the respondent No.2, the driver of a A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-205 of the respondent No.1 driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant on its rear side. As a result, the claimant and his wife fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu and later in a private hospital, Ananthapuramu where a surgery was conducted and steel rods were inserted to his leg. After his discharge from the hospital, he took physiotherapy treatment and special diet at a private clinic. He spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. He was an agriculturist and also doing business. He was aged 38 years at the time of accident. As a result of the accident, he became permanently disabled and, as such he claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 alone contested the claim by filing a counter denying the allegations and further stating that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and further attributed that there was contributory / composite negligence on the part of the claimant. 5. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW1 and the doctors who treated him were examined as PWs 2 and 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A7: Ex.A1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 : Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4 : Bunch of medical bills for Rs.18,451/-. Ex.A5 : Disability certificate Ex.A6 : Copy of discharge summary issued by Dr. Y.S.R. Memorial Hospital, Ananthapuramu. Ex.A7 : X-ray 6. Ex.A3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4 : Bunch of medical bills for Rs.18,451/-. Ex.A5 : Disability certificate Ex.A6 : Copy of discharge summary issued by Dr. Y.S.R. Memorial Hospital, Ananthapuramu. Ex.A7 : X-ray 6. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was filed. 7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus i.e., the respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,92,051/-. The Tribunal granted interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, along with costs payable by both the respondents with joint and several liability. 8. Aggrieved by the award and decree, the respondent No.1 filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation and also the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.2, appealing that there was no negligence of respondent No.2. 9. Insofar as rash and negligence is concerned, the claimant being an eyewitness, gave his evidence. To refute the same, the driver of the bus, i.e., respondent No.2 was examined as RW1. The claimant deposed the narration of the accident as stated in the claim petition. The driver stated that while he was driving the bus on that day, he had seen one male and one female person coming on the motor cycle bearing No.AP02 AA 9841 and that they had suddenly appeared on the main road by crossing from one lane to opposite lane with high speed and without observing traffic, and therefore, he had suddenly applied brakes. He further stated that the rider of the motor cycle could not control the vehicle and the motor cycle skidded as a result of which the persons on it had fallen down on the road and sustained injuries. No other independent witness was examined by the other parties. The charge sheet was laid against the respondent No.2 only. A copy of the rough sketch of the scene of offence has not been filed in evidence. As such, the manner of the accident spoken by the respondent No.2 is not supported by the evidence on record. 10. No other independent witness was examined by the other parties. The charge sheet was laid against the respondent No.2 only. A copy of the rough sketch of the scene of offence has not been filed in evidence. As such, the manner of the accident spoken by the respondent No.2 is not supported by the evidence on record. 10. On the other hand, the evidence of the petitioner is supported by the fact that the investigating officer, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the respondent No.2 only. This fact lends support to the evidence of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 only. Consequently, the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence of the claimant has no merit. 11. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is to be noted that as the petitioner suffered fracture injury and had undergone surgery for implantation of steel rod to his left knee and has consequently suffered some deformity, after considering the evidence of PW1 and also the doctor who treated the claimant examined as PW2 and also the evidence of PW3, who gave disability certificate, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,92,051/- under different heads as follows: Towards pain and suffering as there is one grievous injury 60,000-00 Towards Ex.A4 Medical Bills 18,451-00 Loss of earnings for 40% disability 4,75,000-00 Towards one attendant charges for two months 18,600-00 Towards transport charges 10,000-00 Towards extra nourishment 10,000-00 Total 5,92,051-00 12. As per the evidence of PW2, the claimant was aged 53 years as on the date of the accident and he sustained comminuted fracture of proximal tibia of left leg and was operated on 07.03.2018 and discharged on 12.03.2018 for the injury suffered in the accident. Therefore, considering the nature of the injury and the treatment taken, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. Though the claimant was admittedly treated under the ‘Arogyasree’ scheme free of cost, as PW2 stated that the expenditure under the bills covered by Ex.A4 to an extent of Rs.18,451/- was incurred by the claimant for purchase of certain things, the Tribunal awarded the same amount as compensation for medical treatment. Though the claimant was admittedly treated under the ‘Arogyasree’ scheme free of cost, as PW2 stated that the expenditure under the bills covered by Ex.A4 to an extent of Rs.18,451/- was incurred by the claimant for purchase of certain things, the Tribunal awarded the same amount as compensation for medical treatment. As the petitioner suffered fracture injury, underwent surgery and had to be immobile for certain time, Rs.18,600/- was granted towards attendant charges by calculating @ Rs.310/- per day for two months. The amount of compensation towards extra nourishment was granted on notional basis. Insofar as the amount of compensation towards permanent disability is concerned, the Tribunal calculated the amount by adopting the method of multiplier. 13. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors. , 2010 INSC 703 , the Supreme Court summarized the following principles at paragraph No.13: “13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 14. As per the above decision, unless the permanent disability resulted in loss of future earning capacity, multiplier method cannot be adopted. In such cases, a lumpsum amount can be conventionally awarded to compensate the loss of amenities of life, disfigurement or any such other head appropriate to the case loss of prospects of marriage. The claimant stated that he was an agriculturist and also doing business. In such cases, a lumpsum amount can be conventionally awarded to compensate the loss of amenities of life, disfigurement or any such other head appropriate to the case loss of prospects of marriage. The claimant stated that he was an agriculturist and also doing business. But, he had not placed evidence in support of his statement. He further stated that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and lost his earnings. In this regard also, there is no satisfactory evidence except his oral statement. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/-. It can be considered as reasonable as the accident happened in the year 2018, as any person of average income can make such earning during that period. The evidence of PW2 shows that the petitioner has difficulty in squatting, cross legging and has restricted movement and the deformity is permanent in nature. A steel rod was fixed to his fracture injury to the left leg. Further, PW3 who is a Civil Surgeon Specialist (Ortho), Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, stated that he is a member of the Medical Board which issued disability certificate under Ex.A5 and that the claimant suffered 40% disability and that X-ray revealed that fracture was united with decreased range of movement of weakness of left thigh and leg muzzles with limping. He further deposed that the claimant has difficulty to squat, cross-leg, climb, walk and run. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 together does not establish that the kind of disability suffered by the claimant has reduced the future earning capacity or earnings of the claimant at any rate. This evidence goes to show that the petitioner has some difficulty in sitting or walking etc., but not in attending the work involved in his occupation. Therefore, unless there is evidence that the disability of the claimant resulted in actual future earning capacity or earnings, as already stated, multiplier method cannot be adopted. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier method to award compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- towards loss of earnings due to the disability. However, since the claimant is entitled to compensation towards permanent disability which may hamper his daily life in many forms to attend the work involving manual labour, or movement, conventional amount in lump sum can be awarded to compensate such loss. However, since the claimant is entitled to compensation towards permanent disability which may hamper his daily life in many forms to attend the work involving manual labour, or movement, conventional amount in lump sum can be awarded to compensate such loss. Therefore, this Court is of the view that as the appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount of compensation directed by the Tribunal, vide order, dated 24.01.2025, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw the same, vide order, dated 16.10.2025, in I.A.No.2 of 2025, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant is reduced to half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is not altered. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award and decree, dated 29.07.2024, in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2019 by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.5,92,051/- to half of it, while sustaining the rest of the claim and the rate and period of interest payable and the proportionate costs. No costs are awarded in the appeal. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.