Apsrtc Vs Dhrakshna Chandra Mouli

DHRAKSHNA CHANDRA MOULI, S/O CHALAMAIAH, E M PLOYEE, APSRTC, R/AT D .NO. 3_ 40, BACK SIDE O F TTD KALYANAMANDAPA M ,SRI VASAVI NAGAR, KADIRI ANANTHAPURAMU D ISTRICT

¶17

SYED BABA JOHN, S/O KASEEM PEERA, MUSLIM, RT C DRIVER, LAKSHMIPURAM, H INDUPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM D ISTRICT, (DRIVER OF APSRT S BUS BEARING NO. AP 28 Z 2042) ( R 2 ADDED AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.NO.986/2015, DATED 06.07.2015) (R2 NOT NECESSARY IN THI S MACMA)

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Appeal filed under Or d er 41 of CPC praying that the High C o urt may be pleased to aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2018 in

¶20

2

¶21

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶22

MVOP.202/2014 on the file of the Chiarman, motor accidents claims tribunal cum District judge, Anantapuramu

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal against the order in MVOp. 202/2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims tribunal, Anantapuram

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP. 202/2014 on the chairman Motor Accidents claim tribunal, Anantapuram

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶28

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.CHALLA SIVASANKAR

¶31

Cross Objections No: 9/2019

¶32

Between:

¶33

DHRAKSHA CHANDRA MOULI, S/O CHALAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE APSRTC, R/O D.NO. 3-40, BACK SIDE OF TTD KALYANAMANDAPAM, SRI VASAVI NAGAR, KADIRI, ANANTHAUR DIST.,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST.,

¶37

SYED BABA JOHN, S/O KASEEM PEERA, AGEDA BOUT 49 YEARS, MUSLIM, RTC DRIVER, LAKSHMIPURAM, HINDUPURAM,

¶38

3

¶39

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶40

ANANTHAPURAM DIST., (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 28 Z 2042) (R-2 ADDED AS PER ORDERS IN I.A. NO. 986/2015, DATED 06.07.2015)

¶41

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶42

The order and Decree dated 16.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.202/2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Ananthapuram.

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 94 days in preferring Cross Objections in MACMA.No.108/2019.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.CHALLA SIVASANKAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶49

4

¶50

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

COMMON JUDGMENT;-

¶53

The appeal is preferred by APSRTC questioning the order dated 16.10.2018 in MVOP.No.202 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapuramu.

¶54

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of injuries received by him in the accident that was occurred on 02.08.2010 in which the offending bus belonging to APSRTC bearing Registration No.AP 28 Z 2042 was involved.

¶55

It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.08.2010 while the petitioner was on duty as one of the drivers of the offending bus, he was assisting the other driver of the bus, while it was reversing. In the said process, the other driver of the bus/respondent No.2, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result of which the petitioner fell down and the bus wheels ran over the right leg of the petitioner thereby he sustained severe crush injuries. The petitioner was shifted to SVS Medical College, Eanugonda, Mahaboobnagar District for treatment and later he was shifted to Image Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. In this hospital, he underwent treatment as in patient from 03.08.2010 to 26.08.2010 and again from 01.09.2010 to 12.10.2010. He was again admitted in Nizam’s Institute of

¶56

5

¶57

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶58

Medical Sciences, Hyderabad on 06.11.2010 and was discharged on 22.12.2010. In view of the crush injuries, the petitioner suffered permanent disability and did not attend the duty for 35 months, thereby he lost salary of Rs.6,34,319/-.

¶59

It is further case of the petitioner that he requires Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment for lengthening of his leg. He was examined by the Medical Board which certified that the petitioner is unfit to be a driver and recommended to provide alternative employment, in as much as his leg was shortened by 3 inches.

¶60

A case in Cr.No.211 of 2010 was registered against respondent No.2 under Section 337 and 338 of I.P.C. In view of the crush injuries received by him, he approached the Tribunal, by filing claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- together with interest.

¶61

The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit, contending that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner in as much as he has not guided the respondent No.2 properly, while the bus was reversing. It was further contended that the entire medical expenses incurred by the petitioner were paid by the respondents and he was also provided alternative employment. It was further contended that the salary was paid for leave period and the petitioner did not submit the information with regard to the accident to the respondent No.1 and he has to prove disability and loss of income.

¶62

6

¶63

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶64

With the above pleadings, the respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶65

In order to prove the case of the petitioner he has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Apart from the same, Exs.C1 to C5 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked through his witnesses. On the other hand, the respondents have exhibited attested copy of the payment order of medical expenditure of the petitioner and marked the same as Ex.B1. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents.

¶66

Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by awarding the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realization. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.

¶67

The petitioner filed Cross Objections stating that he did not receive the salary from 03.08.2010 to 05.08.2013, and he is entitled to receive the same.

¶68

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents/cross objector.

¶69

Perused the record.

¶70

The appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded

¶71

by the Tribunal and there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2/driver of APSRTC. To substantiate the grounds raised in the present

¶72

7

¶73

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶74

appeal, the respondents/APSRTC neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence, except marking bald and vague allegations in the counter affidavit, nothing is elicited before the Tribunal to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner/claimant.

¶75

On the other hand, the petitioner has filed the copies of F.I.R and Charge Sheet which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A3 to show that the accident was occurred in view of the negligence of the driver/respondent No.2 of the offending bus.

¶76

On perusal of the contents of the said documents, it would show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the respondents, the contention of the respondents cannot be believed and accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶77

Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned; the petitioner has marked the wound certificate and disability certificate as Exhibits A2 and A4 which would show that the petitioner received crush injuries in the accident that was occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2.

¶78

Apart from the same, the petitioner also got marked Exs. C1 to C5; through the Doctors who treated him. On examination of the documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, it is succinctly clear that the petitioner has sustained injuries. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed

¶79

8

¶80

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶81

anything on record to disprove the same. Taking into consideration of the exhibits placed before the Tribunal, it has awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as the compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner is concerned.

¶82

Be that as it may, the petitioner filed Cross Objections on the ground that he did not receive the salary from 03.08.2010 to 05.08.2013. This statement/contention raised by the petitioner was not disputed by the respondents. Further, on perusal of evidence of PW.5 - Depot Manager, Dharmavaram, it is clear that she has admitted that no salary was paid to the petitioner during the said period except payment of amount of Rs.1,15,382/. Further, she admitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,99,782/- towards salary for the above said period.

¶83

Despite the fact that the Depot Manager, Dharmavaram admitting that the respondents are liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,99,782/- towards the salary, the Tribunal lost sight of the same, and did not take into consideration while awarding compensation.

¶84

As there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for Rs.5,99,782/- in as much as the same has been admitted by PW.5 - Depot Manager, Dharmavaram, this Court is inclined to allow the Cross Objections

¶85

9

¶86

MACMA.No.108 of 2019 Cross Objections No.9 of 2019

¶87

by directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,99,782/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶88