The High Court of Telangana dismissed an appeal filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation. The court held that there was no evidence of contributory negligence and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.
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.
[32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OFAUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C .M.A.No:1626 of2017
Appeal filed under Section1 73 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct,1988 against the award dated 30-01-2017passedin MVOP No.329ot 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal-cum-the Xll Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
Between:
...ApPellants/ResPondents
AND
Ashwin Kumar Kola, S/o. K.Purushotham,Aged19 years, Occ Student,Rl/ o. H .No.12-1 1-1 4451 Boudhanagar, Warasiguda,Secunderabad.
...RespondenUPetitioner
MACM AMP. No: 2997 of 2017
Petition under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleasedto grant stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional ChiefJudge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, d1.3O.01.2017, madein MVOP No.329ot 2014, pending disposal of the above MACMA.
Counsel for the Appellants:SRI THOOMSRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRIB. OMPRAKASH YADAV
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
#
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAC' NATDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.L626 OF 20t7
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the award in MVOp .\o.329 of 2Ol4 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribtrnal-cum_ XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad dated 30.Ol .2O 17 whereunder the learned Chairman of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal altowed the petition filed by the respondent/ claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.14,76,OOOl-, the Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C. and Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C., Kushaiguda Depot, filed this appeal on the following grounds:
The Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.14,76,O00/- with costs and interest @7.5% p.lr. against the claim of the Rs.20,00,000/- filed by respondent/claimant under Section 166 of M.V.r\ct. The Tribunal committed error by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.Ap-28-2-929 though ther.e is no acceptable evidence on record. The Tribunal failed to
2
ILACMA No.1626 oJ 2017
r
appreciate the contentionof the appellant that there is contributory negligence on thepart of the injuredwho involved in the accident.T'he appeliantshar''e clairned that the Court belorv committedan error by acceptingthe evidence of the claimant himselfbeing aninterested witness and failed to appreciate thcfact thatno independ.ent eye witnesswas examined to corroboratethe contents of Ex.A2 chargesheet.
.) MACMA No. ,626 o.[ 20 17
I I I1
-4. 'j
weakness in the muscles of the right thigh and the Tribunal could not have awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of income and pain and suffering. The appellants also claimed that the Tribunal committed error by awarding a sum of Rs.5,O0,OOO/- towardr; medica,l expenses and Rs.3,OO,O00/- towards loss of imenities, thereby sought for setting aside the award.
re
4
MACMA t1o.1626 of 2417
.
extensive soft tissue loss, compound fracture of left patella, degloving injury to left leg, fracture of medial wa-1l of Talus rvith bone loss and oflrer multiple injuries. It seems a complaint rvas lodged r,vith police concerned and a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus.
7 . Now the point for consideration is:
5
MACMA No.t'626 of 2OIT
--i:
',/
re
The main ground on which the appellants sought for setting aside the award is alleged contributory nt:gligence of the respondent. When once the appellant tool< a plea that there was contributory negligence it is for the appellant to prove either by oral or documentar5r r:vidence to establish the same" Even if there are an.,r minor contradictions in the evidence of claimant which are bound to occur due to time lapse, still it is the duty of the appeilant to establish the alleged contributory netr;ligence. As per the record the appellant herein could n rt elicit arything from the respondent who was examined as pWl to show that there was contributory negligence by him.
6
flIACMA No. 1 626 ol 20 ) 7
=7-=-7 .c'/
7
MACMA No.1626 o! 2017
I I
income of the injured as Rs.3,O0O/- per month. As per the evidence placed before the Tribunal, there is ample evidence to believe that the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.5,O0,OO0/- for the treatment. The Orthopedic Surgeon who attended the claimant was examined irs PW2. According to the evidence of PW2 the claimant suffered crush injury on his right leg and he was trr:ated as inpatient in Yashoda Hospital. It seems the rer;pondent undergone 3 operations conducted by Dr.Sanjib Kumar Behara, an Orthopedic Surgeon. PWs Neuro Surgeon deposed before the Court that in view of the accidr:nt there was loss of soft tissue over the right knee of P\4,1 which requires plastic surgery. The evidence placed bt:fore the Court clearly shows that PWl was operated surgical debridement and the injury caused 2oyo weakness; in right thigh muscles and he will receive pain on the right knee because of multiple operations.
1 i. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 established the injuries suffered by the respondent/ crlaimant According to the evidence of PW3 coupled with medical bills it is quite clear that the respondent has paid
8 IvL4CMA No.7626 of 2017
I i I I I
Rs.3,51,669/-. The Court below whileconsideringthe age of the injured being a student of 20 years andin view of the injuries rnore particularly rveakness in ther-ight thigh muscle, r,r,hile considering the income of the injuredas Rs.10,000/- per month and while consideringthe disability @30% based on the oral evidence and documents,rightly considered it as 30% andztrvarded appropriateamount. Because of the above referred accident,the unfortunate respondent/ claimant sufferer multiplefractures. He has undergone surgeries including operationsto thigh bone, thereby, the compensation awarded by theCourt below cannot be termed as excess or exorbitantcompensation. The above said compensation will atleast compensate the loss of the respondent to someextent, thereby the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
As a sequel, pending MiscellaneousApplications,if
any, shall stand closed:
=---sd/-.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//-,..'C2D
SECTION OFFICER
To,
I d
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010812023
JUDGMENT+DECREE
MACMA.No.1626 of 2017
.::..-\
;.i L :ri.-i<br>:'..'''/ ./. ',<br>--.:<br>1s
r5 ttl
+i
,.-. .sl,ll'
\ )/, -4, 't/
- .t r
''i___- I --::,: -:- '1-
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS
L
[32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No:1 626 ot2017
Between:
...Appellants/Respondents
AND
Ashwin Kumar Kola, S/o. K. Purushotham,Aged19 years, Occ Student,R/ o. H .No.12-11-14451 Boudhanagar, Warasiguda,Secunderabad.
...RespondenUPetitioner
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 againstthe award dated 30-01-2017passed in MVOPNo.329of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-theXll Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearingand upon perusing the groundsof appeal, the Judgment andDecree of theLower Court and the material papersin the
7
L
case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI THOOIM SRINIVAS (S(l FOR TSRTC), for the Appellant and SRI B. OtM PRAKASH YADAV, Advocate for R€)spondent.
This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:
Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANIT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
CiD
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT DATED: 1010812023
DECREE
MACMA.No.1626 of 2017
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without appreciating alleged contributory negligence of the claimant?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and liable to be reduced or set aside?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Ashwin Kumar Kola
Sambsiva Rao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
