This court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. It set aside findings of equal blame and held the APSRTC bus driver solely responsible. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.20,000 to Rs.75,000.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.75,000 including interest at 6% per annum from date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NO. 900 OF 2006
| Between: | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Maragani Ramaiah claimant |
… |
Appellant- | |
| V/s. | |||
| Gandam Pulla Rao & Anr. | … Resp | ondents | |
| Counsel for the Appellant Rao |
: | Sri Ravulapati | Sreenivasa |
| Counsel for the Respondents | : | None appeared |
The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NO. 900 OF 2006
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the award and decree dated 03-12-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Khammam in MVOP.No.370 of 2001.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant. None appears for the respondents.
3. According to the appellant on 13-02-2000 he and his wife
(PW-1) boarded an auto bearing No. AP-24U-947 at Venkatapuram to go to
Pinampally village of Nelakondapally Mandal of Khammam district. When the auto reached Morlabanda vagu at about 16-15 hours, an RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-668, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto. As a result, the appellant and his wife and the driver of the auto fell down and received severe injuries. Apart from receiving other injuries, the appellant received grievous injury to the head due to which there was clot of blood in the brain which ultimately resulted in abnormal behavior of the appellant. Due to the
said injury, the speech of the appellant was impaired and he was behaving abnormally by beating the attendant of the hospital. On his behalf, his wife filed claim-petition under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00 under various heads.
4. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, Smt. Maragani Venkataravamma, who is no other than the wife of the appellant was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Ambarapu Mastan Reddy was examined as PW-2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the appellant. Whereas the first respondent-driver of the APSRTC bus was examined as RW-1 on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that it was unable to decide as to how the accident took place as to who was at fault in causing the accident. The learned Tribunal however ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver as well as the driver of the APSRTC bus. Though the evidence on record indicated that speech of the appellant was impaired and he was behaving abnormally on account of the head injury sustained by him, the learned Tribunal granted compensation for the head injury, which is grievous in nature at Rs.30,000-00. An amount of Rs.5,000-00 towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.5,000-00 towards medical expenses. In all the land Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.40,000-00 as compensation. However reduced the compensation of Rs.20,000-00 on the ground that the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-24U-947 was also
responsible for causing the accident and that the appellant-claimant failed to
add the auto driver as well as its owner as parties to the claim-petition.
6. In this appeal, the award was challenged by the appellant on two
grounds, namely;
i) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the driver of APSRTC bus as well as the driver of the auto bearing No. AP-24U-947 are equally responsible for causing the accident are contrary to the evidence record and also not in accordance with law.
ii) Whether the compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is very low and that the Claims Tribunal is not justified in reducing the compensation to half of the amount for which the appellant was entitled to without recording any valid reasons.
7. Point No. (i) : When both parties adduced evidence, it is
unfortunate that the Tribunal expressing the view that it was not possible to record a finding as to how the accident took place and as to whose fault the accident did take place. The learned Claims Tribunal in the present case at one time at one place states that it is not possible to decide as to at whose fault the accident did take place and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that the accident was due to fault of the driver of both the vehicles. From the approach of the learned Claims Tribunal, it appears that the Claims Tribunal did not apply its mind properly to the facts of the case and evidence available on record. There is any amount of uncertainty in the approach of the Claims Tribunal in recording the said finding.
PW-2 is no other than the wife of the appellant. Admittedly she was
travelling in the auto along with her husband. Her presence at the place of
accident at the relevant time is not in doubt. Therefore, she is the direct witness to the accident. If she could be able to give a categorical version about the accident there could have been no difficulty for the Tribunal to arrive at a decision basing on her evidence. However, there is also evidence of RW-1 who is the driver of the APSRTC bus at the relevant time. According to PW-1 while they were proceeding in the auto, when it reached Morlabanda vagu, the APSRTC bus driven by RW-1 in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto, due to which her husband and auto driver fell down and received severe injuries. As against this, RW-1 the driver of the bus, stated that he was driving the bus at minimum speed on the bridge, the auto driver drove the auto at high speed and dashed against the bus in the opposite direction. It is true that there are two conflicting versions of RW-1 and PW-1 before the Claims Tribunal. But that does not mean that due to the evidence of the said two witnesses, the Claims Tribunal was not in a position to record specific finding. Admittedly, while the bus was proceeding on the bridge, the driver has to be very careful and has to maintain minimum speed. If it is so, the question of auto driver coming in a rash and negligent manner and hitting at the bus normally would not arise. Further the evidence of PW-1 is consistent with the version in Ex.A-1 FIR in Cr.No.11/2000 of Nelakondapalli Police Station, which was lodged at the earliest point of time. The police also investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 stating that the accident was caused due to his rash
and negligent driving. In a civil case, the Court has to arrive at the finding basing on the preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, from the evidence forthcoming in this case, it is obvious that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver while driving the bus on the bridge and dashing against the auto bearing No.AP-24U947. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the vehicles and set aside the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, in the circumstances, I hold that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-668 by its driver (RW-1). Consequently, the APSRTC is liable to pay compensation to the appellant and the learned Claims Tribunal is totally unjustified in reducing the compensation, for half of the amount to which the appellant was entitled to. In any event, even if the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, it is not a ground to reduce the compensation for which the appellant is entitled to. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on this aspect are set aside.
8. Point No. (ii) : As regards the quantum of compensation, the
evidence on record i.e., of PW-1 the wife of the appellant and PW-2 Neuro Surgeon discloses that soon after the accident the appellant received a head injury and became unconscious. Immediately he was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Khammam for treatment and his condition
became very serious, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he was treated as in-patent. He gained consciousness four days thereafter. The head injury resulted in blood clot in the brain.
PW-1 specifically stated in her evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant was behaving abnormally and even beating the attendant in the hospital and he was glearing t of his own clothes. Due to the said behavior, he was discharged from the hospital. PW-2 Dr.Ambarapu Mastan Reddy stated in his evidence that the appellant was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad from District Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam on 13-2-2000 as he was treated as inpatient from 14-2-2000 and he left the hospital against medical advise. His evidence also discloses that the head injury received by the appellant is grievous in nature. There is possibility for memory disturbance and speech disturbance on account of the said injuries. The evidence of PW-2 therefore corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and from the evidence it can be understood that there was loss of memory to the appellant and his speech was also impaired. But however, there is no evidence before this Court as to the present condition of the appellant. No disability certificate was also filed to prove the disability sustained by the appellant.
However, considering the nature of the injury sustained by the appellant, which is grievous in nature resulted in blood clot in the brain and the symptoms he exhibited after receiving the said injury, an amount of Rs.40,000=00 is granted towards head injury to him. This apart an amount
of Rs.25,000=00 can be granted for pain and suffering. Basing on the medical bills, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000=00 towards medical expenses and the said amount can be confirmed. A further amount of Rs.5,000=00 was also granted to the appellant towards transport to the Hospital, which also needs no interference.
In all the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000=00. The enhancement therefore Rs.75,000=00 minus Rs.20,000=00 is equal to Rs.55,000=00. The appellant is granted the enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000=00 in this appeal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
9. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.
09-02-2012 I s L
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NO. 900 OF 2006
Circulation No.260 Date: 09-02-2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Claims Tribunal that both drivers were equally responsible were contrary to the evidence and law.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was low and unjustified given the grievous head injury sustained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maragani Ramaiah
Gandam Pulla Rao
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
