Kammili Rambabu Vs Karam Bulli Dora

KARAM BULLI DORA, S/O GANGARAJU DORA, AGED 42 YEARS, DRIVER OF A.P.S.R.T.C. BUS BEARING NO.AP 07 Z 0166, R/O D.NO.1-60, BANDAPALLI THADIVADA, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533 288.

¶13

THE A P S R T C, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, NTR RTC COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe above named Appellants begs to present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree dated 23-12-2021 in M.V.O.P.No.552 of 2018 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶17

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

The present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.552 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.21,32,240/- to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.25,40,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 04.10.2018.

¶27

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

¶28

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶29

a) The Petitioner is a resident of D.No.8-174, Srirangapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal, and works as a mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 04.10.2018 at about 7:30 p.m., while travelling in auto bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913 near Kapavaram Village, and when it reached near Teluvari Kurudu on the outskirts of Kapavaram Village, Korukonda Mandal, the APSRTC bus No.AP 07 Z 0166, coming from Gokavaram side towards Rajahmundry and driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the auto coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner, who was travelling as a passenger, sustained severe injuries and was immediately shifted to GGH, Rajahmundry. In the same accident, the auto

¶30

4

¶31

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶32

driver Kondeti Raju and another passenger, Domada Annapurna sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶33

b) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and thereafter shifted to GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry, where he underwent treatment as an inpatient from 04.10.2018 to 22.10.2018. He sustained injuries. i.e, 1) Compressed Fracture of D.12 Vertebrae, 2) Fracture of right great toe, 3) Injury over left ear, 4) Injury over right foot, 5) Injury over right ankle and 6) Multiple injuries all over the body. He underwent surgery with fixation using screws at the D12 vertebrae, which require removal due to abnormal swelling, and continues to suffer permanent disability. The petitioner has already spent Rs.20,000/- on medical expenses and requires further surgeries and future medical expenditure.

¶34

c) It was contended by the petitioner that prior to the accident, the petitioner was a healthy mason, but he is now in a vegetative state and dependent on others for all activities. He lost sensation in both lower limbs and is deprived of normal pleasures of life, including conjugal relationship with his wife. He requires a bedside attendant on a monthly pay of Rs.5,000/-. His wife, who earlier worked as a coolie to support the family, lost her earnings as

¶35

she now cares for him full‑time. The petitioner has permanently lost his livelihood as he can no longer work as a mason. He continues to suffer total physical disability, pain, and mental agony due to the accident.

¶36

5

¶37

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶38

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, did not file a Written Statement.

¶39

Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter resisting

¶40

the claim of the petitioner, contending that respondent No.1 was driving the APSRTC bus No.AP 07 Z 0166 slowly, carefully, and on the extreme left side of the road. It was the auto driver of vehicle No.AP 05 TN 0913 who was driving rashly, attempted to overtake a bike, went to the wrong side, and dashed the bus despite the bus driver applying sudden brakes. Hence, there was no rashness or negligence on the part of respondent No.1. It was further contended that the petitioner ought to have impleaded the owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw as necessary parties. Therefore, the petition was liable to

¶41

be dismissed.

¶42

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶43

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving and high speed driving of the 1^st respondent/driver?

¶44

2. Whether the petitioner incurred Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges?

¶45

3. Whether the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate?

¶46

4. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?

¶47

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so what extent and against whom?

¶48

6. To what relief?”

¶49

6

¶50

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶51

On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1; Dr.M.Phani Kumar, Medical Officer as P.W.2 and Dr.P.Nalini Mohan, as PW.3. Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W.1, no documentary evidence was adduced.

¶52

After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,32,240/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Respondents 1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.14,32,240/- with interest and costs; the balance Rs.7,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a nationalized bank for one year.

¶53

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner’s age was 25 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. It is further contended that in two connected death cases arising from the same accident, the Tribunal, despite absence of evidence regarding the occupations of the deceased therein, one stated to be a cook and the other an auto driver, relied upon the proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari for the year 2013-14, wherein the daily wage for unskilled labourers

¶55

7

¶56

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶57

were fixed at Rs.278/-, which comes to Rs.8,340/- per month. However, in the present case, though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/per month as a mason, the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month, without applying the Collector’s wage notification, as was done in the other two cases. Hence, the petitioner sought enhancement of the compensation.

¶58

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the

¶59

impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶60

Now the point for consideration is:

¶61

“ Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?”

¶62

POINT :

¶63

On a perusal of the impugned award, it can be observed that the Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as well as Exs.A1 to A5, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the offending vehicle by the 1^st respondent on 04.10.2018. Ex.A1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A4- certified copy of charge sheet also support the same. Though respondent No.1, driver of the APSRTC bus got examined himself as R.W.1 and deposed that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver, the fact remains that he did not file written statement. Even otherwise, the self-serving statement of the driver cannot be

¶64

8

¶65

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶66

taken into consideration in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus only. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard requires no interference.

¶67

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, on a perusal of the awards passed in the other two connected cases involved in the same accident, it is evident that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased therein based on the proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada, for the year 2013-14, which prescribed the wages of skilled and unskilled labourers. As the deceased in those cases were treated as unskilled labourers, the Tribunal fixed their wages at Rs.278/- per day, i.e., Rs.8,340/per month, despite the absence of proof regarding their employment. Since the petitioner herein was also involved in the same accident, this Court is of the opinion that the same method of assessment ought to have been applied in the present case as well, particularly as he was working as a mason prior to the accident and falls under the category of unskilled labour. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant can be assessed as Rs.8,340/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- as fixed by the Tribunal. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.1,00,080/- (Rs.8,340 x 12). Adding 40% towards future prospects, the income becomes Rs.1,40,112/- (Rs.1,00,080 + 40%). As the petitioner was aged 25 years as per Ex.X1/wound certificate and other medical records, the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

¶68

9

¶69

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶70

Corporation¹ . Accordingly, the loss of future earnings is computed at Rs.25,22,016/- (Rs.1,40,112 x 18). Since the disability was assessed at 90% based on the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A5/Disability Certificate, the loss of earning capacity is assessed at Rs.22,69,814/- (Rs.25,22,016 x 90%).

¶71

With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under various heads, the Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW3, working as a Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, and also a member of the Government Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, who signed on Ex.A5/disability certificate along with two other authorized board members of the Government Hospital categorically deposed that the petitioner’s lower limbs have zero power and that he cannot move out of bed or walk. He further stated that the petitioner suffers from bladder weakness, cannot pass urine properly, cannot perform any work by lifting and requires the assistant of an attendant throughout his life. In view of the said evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards attendant charges. Further, Rs.5,000/- towards ‘transportation to the hospital’, Rs.75,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘Extra Nourishment’, this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith.

¶72

1 2017 ACJ 2700

¶73

10

¶74

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶75

Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows:

¶76

Head	Amount granted by the Tribunal	Amount now awarded by this Court
Transportation to hospital	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
Loss of earning capacity	Rs.15,42,240/-/-	Rs.22,69,814/-
Attendant Charges	Rs.5,00,000/-	Rs.5,00,000/-
Pain and Suffering	Rs.75,000/-	Rs.75,000/-
Extra Nourishment	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Total	Rs.21,32,240/-	Rs.28,59,814/-

¶77

In the present case, the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.25,40,000/only, but on considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.28,59,814/-.

¶78

With regard to awarding compensation more than the claim amount claimed in the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others² , held as follows:

¶79

“…there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.”

¶80

2 (2003) 2 SCC 274

¶81

11

¶82

VS,J MACMA No.97 of 2022

¶83

19. In “Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.³ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶84

“33. We are aware that he amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded…..”

¶85

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court need not restrict the compensation to the amount claimed in the petition and can award more compensation than the amount claimed in the claim petition, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶86

Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.28,59,814/- from Rs.21,32,240/with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of additional court fee by the claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶87

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶88

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶89

Date: 17.02.2026 KGR

¶90

3 2020 (04) SCC 413

Kammili Rambabu v. Karam Bulli Dora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammili Rambabu v. Karam Bulli Dora

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

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna

The Apsrtc Vs Penubadi Padmavathi

The Managing Director, Vs Yellavula Subbalakshmi

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vyda Arjuna Rao

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Settibattula Ananda Rao

M/S United Insurance Company Limited Vs Bongu Appalanaidu