S. Vijaya Kumar, Vs Apsrtc

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the order of the I-Additional District Judge-cumChairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool passed in M.V.O.P.No. 88/2013 dated 14.06.2018 the appellant begs to prefer the above appeal for the following among other grounds

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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

¶22

2

¶23

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶24

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of /61 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by Before the I-Additional District Judge—cum-Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool passed in M.V.O.P.No. 88/2013 dated 14.06.2018 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶26

1.KALANGI SUMALATHA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶28

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶29

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2666/2018

¶30

Between:

¶31

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

AND

¶34

S VIJAY KUMAR, S/O.Late S.Poli setty, working as assistant para medical officer aged baout-58 years, R/O.H.no.16-59-A6, college road, Nandikottkur, Kurnool

¶35

...RESPONDENT

¶36

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the Judgement and decree dated.14/06/2018 in MVOP.NO.88/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool

¶37

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶38

3

¶39

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶40

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 stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP.NO.88/2013 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and pass

¶41

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶42

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶44

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

4

¶47

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶48

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶49

Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 14.06.2018, passed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.88 of 2013. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide the issues by way of a common judgment.

¶50

The claimant – S. Vijaya Kumar, filed an application before the tribunal under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident on 13.11.2012, at about 05.00 p.m., near Mabusab godown, Thatipadu, Nandikotkur - Parumanchala main road. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.74 of 2022 and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2666 of 2018.

¶51

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶52

The claimant is the injured and was working as Assistant Para Medical Officer as on the date of accident. The sole respondent is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited. On 13.11.2012, at about 05.00 p.m., while the claimant along with two others was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-R-7862 from Nandikotkur to Parumanchala, the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1702 belonging to the respondent and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which, the claimant and two others fell down and sustained

¶53

5

¶54

VS,J

¶55

MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶56

injuries. Immediately, the claimant was said to be shifted to Amrutha Hospitals, Kurnool, where he was treated as in-patient from 13.11.2012 to 17.12.2012. It is the case of the claimant that due to the accident occurred on 13.11.2012, the 1/3^rd part of his lower right leg got amputated and that he had to spend Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges.

¶57

The respondent filed a counter denying the manner in which the accident has occurred and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and two others as they drove the bike in high speed and lost control over the same while overtaking an auto-rickshaw. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶58

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

¶59

following issues for trial:

¶60

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1702?

¶61

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

¶62

3) To what relief?

¶63

During the course of trial, in support of his case, the claimant got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X3. No oral or documentary evidence was reported on behalf of the respondent.

¶64

The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 and relying upon the documentary evidence put forth before

¶65

6

¶66

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶67

it, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent corporation and fixed liability of paying compensation to the claimant on the respondent corporation.

¶68

Considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses and after taking into account the rival contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- to the claimant, payable by the respondent corporation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, except for the period 16.09.2016 to 25.04.2017, as per the order dated 10.03.2017 in I.A.No.786 of 2016. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the claimants, these appeals were filed.

¶69

Heard Sri. G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶70

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimant has reiterated the contents and findings of the Tribunal and contended that though the claimant filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded a mere sum of Rs.5,90,000/-. He further contended that due to the accident that occurred on the fateful day, the claimant sustained several serious injuries to his right leg and as a result, 1/3^rd of his right leg was amputated. As such, the claimant had been using prosthetic leg to make ends meet. Relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.

¶71

7

¶72

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶73

State Road Transport Corporation¹ , learned counsel for the claimant requested this Court to grant compensation for the purchase and maintenance of the prosthetic leg as held by the Apex Court. The purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. Hence, requested to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation contended that the claimant is not eligible for any amount of compensation as the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-R-7862. Furthermore, at the time of the accident, the claimant and two others were travelling on the said motorcycle, which is nothing but triple riding and the same contributed to occurrence of the accident. Thus, learned Standing Counsel requested this Court to set-aside the impugned order and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶75

Perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and categorically deposed the manner in which the accident occurred on 13.11.2012. The Police, after due investigation filed a charge sheet and the Court below, after due trial found the driver of bus belonging to the respondent corporation guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal, after relying on the entire evidence available before it and relying on the Exs.A1, A3 and A7 filed by the claimant, came to a conclusion that the

¶76

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

¶77

8

¶78

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶79

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent corporation, which in the considered opinion of this Court is rational.

¶80

Admittedly, the claimant had sustained three grievous injuries and the same is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 – Neuro Surgeon of Amrutha Hospital and 3 – Orthopedic Surgeon. It can be seen from their evidence that the claimant sustained fracture of right femur, fibula and tibia and that the right leg below knee of the claimant got amputated. Considering the same, the Court below awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Further, the claimant sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. However, it was observed by the Tribunal that the claimant received medical reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him. Thus, the Tribunal nominally awarded Rs.50,000/- to the claimant under the head of medical expenses. Further, due to the accident, the claimant, who was working as Assistant Para Medical Officer and was earning Rs.51,294/as on the date of accident, is said to have been on leave for a period of 85 days and as such, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Considering the claimant’s 60% partial permanent functional disability due to the amputation of his right leg below the knee, a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for loss of amenities to future life. Although the petitioner has continued employment with a salary increase, the amputation undoubtedly impacts his quality of life. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- to the claimant. This Court finds no

¶81

9

¶82

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶83

wrong on the part of the Tribunal in awarding the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him on 13.11.2012. As such, the appeal filed by the respondent corporation is liable to be dismissed.

¶84

Now, the claimant has filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation as the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation for repair, purchase and maintenance of the artificial/prosthetic leg being used by the claimant. In general, a prosthetic leg is priced at Rs.2,60,000/- and its life is only 5 to 6 years. It also required repair and maintenance after every 6 months to one year and each repair costs between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. As on the date of accident, the claimant is aged about 53 years and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old. Thus, the claimant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase two prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the prosthetic limbs alone, the claimant is to be awarded compensation of Rs.5,20,000/-, as each prosthetic limb costs around Rs.2,60,000/-. In addition, Rs.20,000/is to be awarded towards repair and maintenance of the prosthetic leg for every one year. In other words, as the claimant would be using the prosthetic legs for 17 years in total, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation towards repairs and maintenance of the

¶85

10

¶86

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶87

prosthetic leg. In total, the claimant is now entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- [Rs.5,20,000/- + Rs.3,40,000/-].

¶88

On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimant under different heads ought to be as under:

¶89

Head of compensation	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount enhanced by this Court
Pain and suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.50,000/-
Loss of earnings during the period of treatment	Rs.1,20,000/-	Rs.1,20,000/-
Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
Loss amenities to future life	Rs.3,00,000/-	Rs.3,00,000/-
Cost of prosthetic leg and its maintenance	-	Rs.8,60,000/-
Total	Rs.5,90,000/-	Rs.14,50,000/-

¶90

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned

¶91

judgment is liable to be modified as above and the claimant is held entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/-.

¶92

11

¶93

VS,J MACMA_74 of 2022 & 2666 of 2018

¶94

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.74 of 2022, preferred by the claimant is allowed in part and M.A.C.M.A.No.2666 of 2018, preferred by APSRTC, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶95

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶96

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶97

Date:02.02.2026.

¶98

Gss

S. Vijaya Kumar, v. Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Vijaya Kumar, v. Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.K.Mohammed lqbal

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shaik Meeravali

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shaik Ashraf Ali @ Shaik Ashraff

The Apsrtc Vs C.Chinnakka

Apsrtc Vs Murikipudi Adam

Ammanabrolu Venkata Narasimharao, Vs Kolli Kishore