MACMA/2637/2011 of SANKULA PEDDA SRINU Vs A.P.S.R.T.C. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR on 31 December 2019

ORDER:

1) Not being satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No. 110 of 2010, dated 14.07.2011, on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur, the present Appeal is filed by the Claimant/Injured under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2) The facts, in issue, are as under:

(i) On 23.12.2009 at about 11.30 AM, the Petitioner along with others was travelling in the auto bearing no. AP7 TT 8833 and when it reached near Kaligardens Arch, NH-5 Road, Peda Kakani, a RTC bus bearing no. AP11 Z 4991 driven by its RTC driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the auto. As a result of which, the Petitioner and others sustained injury. The Petitioner is said to have received fracture of cervical spinal injury at neck region and dislocation of right hand. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur where he underwent an operation. In respect of the same, a case in Cr. No. 373/2009 came to be registered under Sections 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code.

3) A counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that, since the auto was carrying more than three passengers at the time of incident, he lost control over the vehicle which lead to accident. It is stated that, the driver of the auto is responsible for the accident.

4) In the course of Trial, the Claimants examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to E.A5 and Ex.X1. The Respondent examined RW1 and got marked Ex.B1.

5) Considering the rival submissions, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit by the Respondent. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed.

6) Since, this Appeal is filed by the Claimants, there cannot be any challenge to the manner in which the accident took place and also the liability of the Road Transport Corporation.

7) The question is, whether the claimant is entitled to more compensation than what has been awarded?

8) As seen from the record, the Claimant herein filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards special and general damages. Considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal Awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards special diet; Rs.2,000/- towards transport and miscellaneous expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of earning power. The record shows that, the Doctor who issued Ex.A5 –Disability Certificate was not examined. However, PW2 who treated the injured in his evidence states that there was physical disability and functional disability to the Claimant and that he cannot walk due to weakness of right lower limb. However, his evidence is silent as to the percentage of the disability. From the above, it is evident that, there was some disability to the Claimant, which made him immovable for some time.

9) It is not the case of the Corporation that the Petitioner was not an earning member. He was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and being an able bodied person, he has been earning substantial amount to make both ends meet.

10) This being a welfare legislation and as the interest of the Claimant-injured is of paramount consideration, I feel that the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, insofar as the permanent liability and loss of earning power needs to be on higher side, more so, when the evidence on record show that the Petitioner received fracture of cervical spinal injury at neck region and dislocation of right hand apart from disability as spoken to by PW2. Hence, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to meet the ends of justice, in view of the amendment to II Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

11) Insofar as the amount claimed towards special damages, transport and miscellaneous expenses, the evidence of PW1 shows that, after the incident, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent operation. Definitely, he must have incurred some expenditure while being treated as in-patient in the hospital. Not only that, he would have also incurred transport charges from scene of incident to the hospital and for visiting the hospital regularly. Therefore, the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded on both the counts appears to be on lower side and hence the same can be increased by another Rs.5,000/- [Rs.2,500/- on each count].

12) Thus, in total under both the heads, i.e. special and general damages, the Petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of [Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/-] = Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only].

13) Accordingly the Appeal filed by the Appellants/Claimants is allowed modifying the Order, dated 14.07.2011, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 110 of 2010, on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur, to the extent of additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with interest at 6.5% from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of realization, which is in addition to the amount already awarded and the same shall be deposited by the Respondent after adjusting the amount if any already deposited or paid, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. On such deposit, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.

14) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

SM.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2637 of 2011

Date: 31.12.2019