APHC010053482019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 101/2019 Between: Andrha Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND D Subbaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 16.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.372 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.7,50,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 26.10.2015. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 26.10.2015, the petitioner and others were travelling in an Allwyn Mini Lorry bearing No.AP04-TT-5094, from his village to Kadapa to attend a marriage ceremony of his relative; that on the way when they reached near a well called Bali Reddy baavi situated on Badvel to Kadapa main road, respondent No.2, being the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP26-Z-0115 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Allwyn lorry in which the petitioner was travelling, at about 6.00 p.m., as a result of which, the petitioner and some other passengers in the Allwyn lorry and some passengers in the bus sustained injuries. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Badvel. From there, the petitioner got admitted in RUSH Hospital, 3 Tirupati under NTS Arogya Sree on 29.10.2015, where the doctors noticed fracture of left fore arm bones and conducted surgery on left wrist and thereafter, the petitioner took outpatient treatment by visiting the said hospital several times. The accident was reported to Atlur Police Station and a case was registered in Cr.No.63/2015 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. 04. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that he was aged about 43 years at the time of accident and hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.500/- per day by working as a Barber and contributing for the maintenance of his family. On account of fracture to left forearm and surgery, the petitioner was totally prevented to attend any type of work for one year and even thereafter, the petitioner is not able to perform his duties normally like before, thereby suffered loss of income. It was further contended that the petitioner is unable to lift weights and unable to attend any work by using left hand. Thus, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 05. Respondent No.1/APSRTC filed counter contending that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling who overtook the bus suddenly and stopped his vehicle and opened the door of the lorry and as the distance between the bus and the lorry was much less, the bus dashed against the lorry and as such, the accident took place. It was further contended that the charge sheet shows that there is negligence on the part of Allwyn lorry driver and the driver and 4 owner of the said lorry are also shown as accused in the criminal case filed against them. There is collision of vehicles and hence, non-joinder of owner of Allwyn lorry and its insurer is fatal to the case of claimant. It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature and not grievous and that there is no permanent disability suffered by him. The 1st respondent further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and sought dismissal of the petition. 06. The 2nd respondent-Driver of bus bearing No.AP26-Z-0115 also filed a written statement on similar lines as that of the written statement of the 1st respondent and sought dismissal of the petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP26-Z-0115 or not? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and the doctor, who treated the petitioner, was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 5 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with subsequent interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order as against the claim of Rs.7,50,000/- 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents No.1 /APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in which the petitioner/claimant was travelling. It is further contended that though there is no permanent disability sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that he has sustained 20% disability. It is further contended that there was no sufficient proof of income of the petitioner but the Tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.9,000/- per month, which is not sustainable. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 6 POINT: 13. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, on account of which the petitioner sustained injuries. Though the appellant contends that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Allwyn lorry in which the petitioner was travelling, but, however, the fact remains that except the self-serving statement of R.W.1, who is the driver of the offending bus, there is no other evidence placed on record to substantiate the said contention. Upon consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the finding of the Tribunal in that regard. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the absence of specific proof of the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal, considering the fact that the petitioner was aged 43 years and was hale and healthy, assessed his income as Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable On applying the relevant multiplier of ‘14’ applicable to the age of the petitioner, i.e., 43 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, it would come to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 14). Though P.W.2, the doctor, who treated the petitioner, assessed the disability sustained by the petitioner at 30%, however, having regard to the nature of injuries mentioned 1 2009 ACJ 1298 7 in Ex.A2- Wound Certificate, the Tribunal found it appropriate to treat the permanent disability as 20%, and, awarded Rs.3,02,400/- (Rs.15,12,00/- x 20%) towards loss of earnings of the petitioner, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, totalling to Rs.65,000/-, which is also just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. Further, keeping in view the ratio laid down in Dr.Balaram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha2, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,600/- towards costs of litigation and the same cannot be found fault with. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal, warranting interference in this appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.04.2025 KGR 2 (2013) 13 SCALE 1