Appeal by APSRTC against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh for injuries sustained in a 1997 accident. Appeal dismissed confirming Tribunal's award based on medical evidence.
Appeal dismissed confirming the order and decree dated 19.04.2004 passed by the Tribunal in O.P. No.64 of 1998.
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.
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1864 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, who is respondent No.2 in O.P. No.64 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2004, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 herein against the appellant and the driver of the crime vehicle-respondent No.2 herein, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident occurred on 19.01.1997.
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_1864_2005
2
came and dashed against the RTC bus, as such, the petitioner was the victim of his own negligent act and absolutely, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus; the Tribunal erred in granting an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards head injury and its continuous effect, without there being any evidence; and the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is highly excessive and arbitrary. Ultimately, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
(1) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 4682?
(2) Whether the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal is highly excessive and arbitrary?
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_1864_2005
3
Vehicles Inspector’s report, Ex.A.5-medical bills 24 in number amounting to Rs.14,316-75 ps and Ex.A.6-two X-ray films. There was no evidence on behalf of respondent No.2-APRTC and no documents were marked on its behalf. There is evidence of P.W.1 that he sustained injuries on stomach, hands, head, legs and other parts of the body, due to the accident caused by the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 4682. Due to the injuries, he was in patient for about two months in Government Hospital, Tiruvur and thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada, where he took treatment as inpatient for two months and nails were fixed. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment. He suffered from stomach-ache and he is unable to walk. Before the accident, he was earning Rs.100/per day. There is evidence of P.W.2, who is the Professor of Surgery, about the admission of the petitioner in the hospital on 20.01.1997. He found irregular injury on abdomen (right side) of the petitioner, left index finger was broken and there were lacerated injuries on right thigh. There was developed dehiscence and faecal fistula. Sol the closure of ileum fistula was done. Even today, there is persistent with minimum discharge and now the petitioner feels inconvenience of faecal fistula, which is not yet closed. The petitioner has to suffer for life. There was need for another operation. Ex.A.3-certified copy of wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer working at Government Hospital, Tiruvur, corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1-petitioner and P.W.2-doctor. As per the evidence and the documents, the petitioner suffered the following injuries and the same are also mentioned in Ex.A.3-wound certificate:
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_1864_2005
4
over lower abdomen and not able to pass urine and not able to stand. Advised X-ray of abdomen;
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_1864_2005
5
different view. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed in all respects. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly.
_________________________
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
Date: 20.10.2017
siva
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver?
Whether the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal is highly excessive and arbitrary?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Claimant
Driver of the RTC bus
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
