Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Golagamudi Chandramma

ANDHRA PRADE S H STATE ROAD TRANSPORT C O RPORATION, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, RT C BUS-STAND, NELLORE, OWNE R OF RTC BUS NO. AP 29 Z 2987.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

GOLAGAMUDI SU B BARAMAIAH, SON OF PENCHAL A IAH, AGED 55 YEARS, RES I DING AT HARIJANAWADA, LINGAMPALLI, PODALAKUR VILL A GE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RE S IDING AT RAMAKOTAIAH NAG A R, NELLORE CITY.

¶15

KUCHIPATI PENCHALAIAH, SON OF PENCHALAIA H , DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS B E ARING NO AP 29 Z 2987, P O DILI DEPOT, RESIDING AT YAD A VA VEEDHI, KALUVOY, NELLORE.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Appeal filed under O rder 41 of CPC praying that the Hi g h Court may be pleased to allow the M A CMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 503 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claim' s Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District an d pass

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and Decree dated 24.12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 503/2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶22

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 167 OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, RTC BUS-STAND, NELLORE, OWNER OF RTC BUS NO. AP 29 Z 2987.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

AND

¶30

GOLAGAMUDI CHANDRAMMA, WIFE OF PEDDA SUBBAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, SC MALA, RESIDING AT LINGAMPALLI THOPU, PODALAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAMAKOTAIAH NAGAR, NELLORE CITY.

¶31

KUCHIPATI PENCHALAIAH, SON OF PENCHALAIAH, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 29 Z 2987, PODILI DEPOT, RESIDING AT YADAVA VEEDHI, KALUVOY, NELLORE.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 502 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the

¶34

3

¶35

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and pass

¶36

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶37

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 24-12-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 502 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass

¶38

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶39

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

4

¶44

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2022

¶45

AND

¶46

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167 OF 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶47

The M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 78 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.1/ APSRTC, challenging the Award, dated 24.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

¶48

The M.A.C.M.A.No. 167 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.1/ APSRTC challenging the Award, dated 24.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Nellore (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶49

As both Appeals arise out of the same accident, this Court feels it

¶50

appropriate to dispose of by way of a Common Judgment.

¶51

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Claim Petitions respectively.

¶52

5

¶53

The brief facts in both the Appeals are as follows:

¶54

On 10.08.2016 at about 8.30 a.m while the claimant and others were proceeding in a Auto bearing No. AP 26 TE 1672 towards Kisan Nagar from their house for the purpose of their relatives marriage. When they reached Podalakur to Nellore Road, Marupuru, Podalakur Village and Mandal, at that time one driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 29 Z 2987 coming in a opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the Auto. As a result of which the claimant and others fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The Podalakur Police registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2016.

¶55

The Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition, inter alia contended that the driver of the auto hit the right side back portion of the bus and on hearing the sound the driver of the said bus stopped the bus and observed the back portion of the bus and in the mean time, the said auto without stopping left the place. Immediately, the driver of the bus came to Police Station and lodged a complaint. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The amount as claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant.

¶56

The Respondent No.2 remained exparte.

¶57

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.Nos.502 and 503 of 2017.

¶58

6

¶59

“1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 2^nd respondent, who was driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 2987 and it resulted injuries to claimant?

¶60

2. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto in which claimant was proceeding?

¶61

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶62

4. To what relief?”

¶63

On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.1/APSRTC, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

¶64

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition against Respondent No.1/ Appellant, awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- in M.V.O.P.No. 502 of 2017 and Rs. 1,20,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 with subsequent interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization and directed Respondent No.1 to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order.

¶65

Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondents No.1 /APSRTC preferred these Appeals contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, which hit right side back portion of bus and left the place, as such driver, owner and insurer of Auto bearing No. AP 26 TE 1672 are accountable for contributory negligence on their part. It is further contended that the injuries

¶66

7

¶67

sustained by the Claimants are minor in-nature and that they did not suffer any functional disability. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶68

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents in both the Appeal have supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶69

Now the point for consideration is:

¶70

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶71

POINT:

¶72

The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Corporation is that on the date of the accident, the driver of the auto hit the right side back portion of the bus and on hearing the sound the driver of the bus got down from the bus and observed the back portion of the bus and in the meantime, the auto left the place without stopping. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶73

However, the Tribunal observed that as Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A3Charge Sheet were filed against the driver of the APSRTC bus under Section 337 and 338 of IPC, the claimants sustained injuries due to accident taken place on account of the negligence on the part of Respondent No.2, during his employment under Respondent No.1. Though, the R.W-1, who is driver of APSRTC Bus was examined, but nothing was elicited in his evidence, except

¶74

8

¶75

admitting the fact that RW-1 was the accused as per FIR and Charge Sheet. Therefore, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 was held in favour of the Claimants respectively.

¶76

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 502 of 2017 is concerned, PW-3 is a Doctor, who treated the injured/ Chandramma, who stated that three fingers of the claimant Chandramma were removed from her right hand and there is a permanent disability for PW-2. Further, due to removal of three fingers of her right hand, she had taken treatment to heal the injuries for 45 days. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of earnings due that period.

¶77

The Tribunal granted compensation under various heads in M.V.O.PO.No.502 of 2017 viz., Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/-; Medical Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000/-; Transport Charges Rs. 10,000/-; pain and suffering is Rs. 50,000/- and permanent disability is Res. 50,000/-, which totally comes to Rs.1,60,000/-, to the Petitioner therein.

¶78

As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 is concerned, PW-3 is the Doctor, who treated the Claimant, categorically stated that Claimant/ Golagamudi sustained five grievous injuries. There is possibility of disability for PW-1. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of earnings is Rs. 10,000/-.

¶79

9

¶80

1. The Tribunal granted compensation under various heads in M.V.O.PO.No.503 of 2017 viz., Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Medical Charges Rs. 10,000/-; Extra Nourishment Rs. 10,000/-; Transport Charges Rs. 10,000/-; pain and suffering is Rs. 50,000/- and permanent disability is Rs. 20,000/-, totaling Rs.1,20,000/-, to the Petitioner therein.

¶81

The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants and as well as exhibits relied on by them has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2017 would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- and Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2017 would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the Claimant.

¶82