APHC010680322012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2997/2012 Between: The Ap State Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND Karuturi Venkateswara Rao Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 2997 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the APSRTC impugning the order dated 07.09.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in MVOP.No.534 of 2009. 2. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri K. Venkateswara Rao aged 33 years has been a practicing Advocate. On 01.07.2006, he was raiding a motor cycle at about 04.30 pm and when the motor cycle reached near Kurukuru cross road of Yarnagudem to Nidadavolu road, though he was driving the bike on left side of the road, APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 10 Z 9409 coming in the opposite direction came and dashed his motor bike causing grievous injuries on head and all over the body. Alleging that the incident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, he filed MVOP.No.534 of 2009 before learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry and he sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- making the driver as R1 and 3 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 APSRTC as R2. Both the respondents filed their counters attributing no fault on their part contending that the entire fault lies with claim petitioner. They sought dismissal of the claim. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the first respondent, while driving the RTC Bus bearing No.AP10Z 9409? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 3. The claimant testified as PW.1 and two of the doctors who treated him testified as PW.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A9 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents therein, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the entire evidence on record and the rival submissions, learned claims tribunal stated that pertaining to the subject matter accident, a case as against the driver of the APSRTC bus in Cr.No.126 of 2006 was registered at Devarapalli Police Station as per Ex.A1/ FIR and after due investigation, a 4 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 charge sheet was laid as per Ex.A4. It found that the offending bus was inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and as per his Ex.A3 report, the accident was not out of any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Considering the above material and the version of the injured eye witness, it held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. 5. From the evidence on record and Ex.X2 / X-Ray films and Ex.X3/ scan films and Ex.A2/ wound certificate and Ex.A8/ X – Ray films and the evidence of PW.2 and 3/ doctors, it found that the injured claimant was treated at Dr.Raja Rao memorial hospital, Nidavolu and thereafter, he was treated at Life Emergency hospital, Rajahumundry and thereafter, once again treated at Dr.Raja Rao memorial hospital, Nidavolu and thereafter, he was admitted and treated at NIMS Hyderabad. It observed that there was grievous injury on the head of the claimant and there were three other simple injuries on his right shoulder, right hand and right knee joint. After considering Ex.A5, A6, A7 and A9 and Ex.X1 medical bills, prescriptions and case sheets, it found that the claimant expended Rs.46,783/- towards treatment. The following amounts were awarded by the claims tribunal and they are mentioned below. 5 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 Amount in Rs. 1. Towards actual medical expenses 46,783 2. Towards loss of actual earnings 10,000 3. Towards pain and suffering 30,000 4. Towards transportation and extra nourishment 10,000 5. Towards future loss of income 10,000 Thus, total compensation of Rs.1,06,783/- was found to be just compensation and that was awarded. 6. It passed the award in the following terms: “In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, this petition is partly allowed granting a sum of Rs.1,06,783/-(Rupees one lakh six thousand seven hundred and eighty-three only) with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest at 7.5%p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment against R.2. The R.2 is hereby directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.1,06,783/-(Rupees one lakh six thousand seven hundred and eighty three only) within two months. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and the remaining balance amount shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank for about two years.” 7. Aggrieved by it, APSRTC preferred this appeal. 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 8. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, the learned standing counsel for APSRTC earnestly submits that the impugned award requires interference since the compensation granted is excessive and in fixing the income of the claimant, the learned claims tribunal committed an error. 9. As against it, Sri Jaswanth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned counsel for R1/ injured claimant argued that the learned claims tribunal appropriately considered the evidence and granted compensation and there are no grounds to interference in this appeal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The point that falls for consideration is “Whether the impugned award requires interference on the ground that excess amount of compensation was granted?” POINT: - 11. From the rival submissions and the record made available before this court, the undisputed fact is that a young practicing Advocate suffered a head injury and injuries on his knee, hands 7 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 and shoulders. For months, he was treated as inpatient for some time and as outpatient for some time. He had to undergo several diagnostic tests such as X-ray and scanning on multiple occasions. A lawyer makes his earnings by attending proceedings before the courts. Injuries on the head and other limbs of the body prevented him for several days from attending his regular work before the courts. 12. In his evidence, the claimant/PW.1 deposed that as a practicing Advocate he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and for one and half years, he was unable to attend the work and therefore, he suffered serious loss of earnings. However, on analysis of the evidence, the learned claims tribunal very conservatively took a view that the lawyer’s income was not demonstrated by any documents or other evidence and therefore held that Rs.2,000/- per month was the monthly income of the claimant. It was found from the evidence that the claimant was unable to attend his works for about five months. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted towards loss of income. The contention urged on behalf of the APSRTC that the learned claims tribunal committed an error in fixing the income of the claimant is a very disappointing contention. Be it noted, on behalf 8 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 of the appellant, no evidence was brought on record before the claims tribunal. As against the claimed monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, fixing of Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income of an Advocate by the claims tribunal can never by any logic be stated to be incorrect. 13. The Claimant who had undergone treatment for about five months had to make multiple visits to hospitals and had to take food and food supplements towards extra nourishment to recover from his injuries. The claims tribunal conservatively granted Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. One can never argue anything contrary since what was held by the claims tribunal is based on facts spoken through sworn evidence. The compensation awarded is in accordance with the facts and law. There is no merit in this appeal. Point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 19.02.2025 Dvs 9 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.2997 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 2997 of 2012 Date: 19.02.2025 Dvs