APHC010630092013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2160/2013 Between: A.p.s.r.t.c., ...APPELLANT AND Kanithi Issac and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N B CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. assailing the award dated 26.10.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri N.B.Chandra Sekhar, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: A boy aged about 19 years during his intermediate studies was a pillion rider on a bicycle driven by his friend Sri P.Anand on 03.03.2009. It was at about 1:15 P.M. from the rear side of the bicycle A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-9142 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 came and dashed on the rear side of the bicycle resulting in serious injuries to the boy by name Kanithi Issac. Claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act he filed M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2010. Respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. therein put in a counter refuting the allegations made in the claim petition taking various pleas and praying for dismissal of the claim. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the 1st respondent drove the R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9142 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and responsible for the accident? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.X.1 were produced. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus who 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 was shown as respondent No.1 testified as RW.1 and no documents were exhibited. 6. After considering the material on record, the Claims Tribunal took the view that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. It considered the medical record and the injuries suffered by the injured boy and considered the ruling of this Court in Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Kathavath Gopal1. It assessed the compensation under the following heads: 1. Two grievous injuries Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.3,38,692/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- 5. Extra nourishment and food Rs. 10,000/- 6. Further medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- 7. Transport charges Rs. 10,000/- Total Amount Rs.4,93,692/- 1 2003 (5) ALD 198 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,43,690-00 with proportionate costs together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The rest of the claim is dismissed. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount of compensation together with interest at 9% per annum within 3 (three) months from the date of this order. On deposit of the compensation amount by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount granted to him.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted arguments. 8. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it is urged that:  The Claims Tribunal considered the income of the injured while there was no appropriate evidence proving the income of the injured.  The accident occurred because of the negligence of the person who was peddling the bicycle and the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, but the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence properly in this regard.  The driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was prosecuted before a Criminal Court and was eventually acquitted and the Claims Tribunal failed to consider this.  Amounts of compensation granted under various heads are incorrect and excessive.  9% of interest granted by the Claims Tribunal is against the principles of law. 9. It is on the above points, the learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments. 10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award suffers from factual and legal errors requiring interference?” POINT: 11. Soon after the accident F.I.R. was registered and its copy is Ex.A.1. After due investigation the State Police prosecuted the 7 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus as they filed a charge sheet against him evidenced by Ex.A.2. Though during the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal A.P.S.R.T.C. had suggested that its driver was prosecuted and was acquitted, it is not known as to why the said judgment of the Criminal Court was not placed for consideration before the Claims Tribunal. Be that as it may. The learned Claims Tribunal in fact bestowed its attention on this aspect of the matter and then embarked upon assessing the evidence that was placed before it, without being influenced by the alleged acquittal judgment of the Criminal Court. That approach of the learned Claims Tribunal is unexceptionable since every judicial forum is required to take a decision based on the material placed before it but not otherwise. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal referred to the contents of counter of A.P.S.R.T.C. wherein it had recorded that the cyclist while overtaking the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus fell down and suffered injuries. However, the driver of the offending bus while testifying as RW.1 deviated this factual aspect, and he had deposed stating that in front of his bus an auto rickshaw was going on and the 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 cyclist while overtaking that auto rickshaw fell down and there was no impact to the victim from the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. That version given on oath was not the version averred in the counter and therefore the Claims Tribunal stated that what was pleaded was not proved and what was sought to be proved was not pleaded. It then considered the evidence of PW.1 who was the victim-cum-witness of the incident and considered the investigative outcome and rightly concluded that the fault was on part of the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and not on part of the rider of the bicycle. At any rate, the injured was not responsible for the movement of the bicycle or the movement of the offending bus. He is a third party and a victim but not a tort- feasor. In the opinion of this Court the findings given by the Claims Tribunal are in accordance with the evidence and the contrary contentions raised in this appeal are without any merit. 13. In the impugned award the Claims Tribunal mentioned that the injured victim has been a student and not an earning member. It assessed the compensation based on that aspect only. It did not record any observation about the possible income of the 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 victim. In such view of the matter, the ground urged in this appeal that the Claims Tribunal incorrectly assessed the income of the injured is a vexatious contention and hence rejected. 14. The compensation that was awarded under various heads have already been enumerated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. Before the Claims Tribunal the injured claimant contended that he had spent Rs.5,50,000/- towards his medical expenses. However, from the various diagnostic reports and the medical bills and the hospital expenses, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the claimant was able to establish his actual medical expenses at Rs.3,38,692/-. As per evidence of PW.2-the doctor, the injured claimant suffered several injuries all over his body and there was disfiguration of his both legs and between 05.03.2009 and 28.05.2009 he underwent multiple surgeries. By the time the trial took place also the injured was found unable to flex his left knee joint to an extent of 50%. The medical evidence disclosed the imminent requirement of surgeries in future. The injured person was bedridden for nearly three months. It was in such circumstances; the learned Claims Tribunal awarded various 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 amounts that are referred to earlier. During hearing, the learned counsel for appellant could not point out any discrepancies in what was granted by the Claims Tribunal. 15. However, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant is that after adding various amounts granted under various heads, the Claims Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to Rs.4,93,692/-. However, it committed an error and granted only Rs.4,43,690/- which is a typographical error requiring correction. On a recalculation of all the amounts granted by the Claims Tribunal this Court found merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Therefore, what was mentioned by the Claims Tribunal i.e., Rs.4,43,690/- should be read as Rs.4,93,690/- and to that extent the impugned award requires modification. 16. Claims Tribunal granted 9% interest. That is challenged here by the appellant. 17. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as below: 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.— Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 18. Referring to this 9% of interest, a Division Bench of this Court in R.Konda Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.2 and after citing the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rahul Sharma v. National Insurance Company Limited3 and Kirthi v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited4 approved 9% interest per annum. Nothing is brought to the attention of this Court by the learned counsel for appellant that at the material point when the award was passed by the Claims Tribunal 9% interest was not the interest that was awarded by the nationalized banks. It is in these circumstances this Court finds that the contention raised against the rate of interest is misconceived. Hence, the point is 2 2024:APHC:29078 3 (2021) 6 SCC 188 4 (2021) 2 SCC 166 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 answered against the appellant. However, the award of the Claims Tribunal stands modified. 19. In the result, while the Appeal is dismissed, the impugned award dated 26.10.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Court, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2010 is modified from Rs.4,43,690/- to Rs.4,93,690/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 25.04.2025 Ivd 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.2160 of 2013 Date: 25.04.2025 Ivd