Allowed

The Depot Manager,Apsrtc, Hyd and Another v. Sirisinagala Devender

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023MACMA/3296/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation from Rs. 4,89,000 to Rs. 16,41,000 for a cement labourer who lost his leg in a bus accident. The court found 100% loss of earning capacity and increased damages for future amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,41,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

The Depot Manager,Apsrtc, Hyd and Another Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COT,RT FOR T+IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD

¶3

TUESDAY, TI.IE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYT+IREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR^RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAEOUS APPEAL NO 1 s820F 2014 AND

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLAEOUS APPEAL^{NO.32960F2011}

¶8

i i Appeal filed Under Section¹⁷³ of^{MotorVehicles Act against the Order and} 'decree in M.V.O.P.No.2031 of 20O8 dated 26.03.20'10 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Judge,^{Cum-Chairman MACT-CumCriminal Court'} Hyderabad.

¶9

MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLAEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1}

¶10

20F 2014

¶11

Between:

¶12

Sirisingala Devender, S/o.^{Ramulu,Occ Contract Labour in NFC R/o.3-47'} Kilasagiri, H.B. Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶13

,.,AppellanUPetitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

The Depot Manager, APSRTC,^{Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad.}

¶16

Andhra Pradesh State Road,Transport^{Corporation, Repr€sentedby its} Managing Director, Mushirabad,^{Hyderabad. (Owner of APSRTCBus Bearing} No. AP-9-Z-7966)

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLAEOUS} PEAL NO.3296 oF 2011

¶19

Between

¶20

The Depot Manager, APSRTC,^{BarkatpuraDepot,Hyderabad.(Owner of} APSRTC Bus Bearing No.^AP-92-7966)

¶21

The Managing Director.^{Andhra Pradesh State Road,Transport Corporation,} RTC X Roads Hyderabad.^{(Ownerof APSRTC Bus BearingNo. AP-92-7966)}

¶22

.. .AppellanURespondent

¶23

AND

¶24

Sirisingala Devender,^{S/o. Ramulu,Occ Contract Labour in l'tFCRyo. 3-47'} Kilasagiri, H.B.^{Colony, Hyderabad.}

¶25

. RespondenUPetitioner

¶26

I i1 I

¶27

I IIt !

¶28

,Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA No.l582 OF 2014 AND 'Respondent in MACMA No.3296 OF 2011 : Sri T V|SWARUPA CHARY 'Counsel for the Respondents in :,MACMA No.1582 ol 2O11 and Appellants in MACMA No.3296 of 20i l : Sri THOOM SRINIVAS The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶29

: .-" rl.i.

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIUAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶31

M.A.C.M .A No.1582 OF 2Ol4

¶32

¶33

M.A.C.M.A No.3296 OF^2O11

¶34

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶35

Both these Motor Accident^{Civil Miscellaneous Appeals} are being disposed^{of by way of this commonjudgment as both} these appeals^{aredirectedagain st theJudgment} dated 26.03.2010^{in O.PNo.2O3Iof 2008 passed by the XXII} Additional Chief^{Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims} Tribunal, City Criminal^{Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred} to as the Tribunal').

¶36

In M.A.C.M.A No.3296^{of 2}ll,} the appellants/ respondents/RTC^{had challengedthe award and prayedto set} aside the same. and in^{M.A.C.M.A No'1582 of 2014'the} appellant/petitioner^{had challengedthe judgment being} aggdeved b-v the^{quantumof compensationand prayed to} enhance the^same.

¶37

For convenience,^{the facts in M.A'C'M'ANo' 1582 of 2Ol4} are discussed^{hereunder, and the parties are hereinafter} referred to^{as thev rvere arra:-ed before the Tribunal'}

¶38

¶39

¶40

RRN,J Common Judgment ln MACMA No.1582 of 2014 & 3296 of 2011

¶41

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2008 at about 6.OO p.m., the petitioner was waiting for a bus in order to go to his residence and RTC Bus bearing No.AP-92-7966, belonging. to Barkathpura Depot, came to the bus stop and boarded the said bus but was forced by the bus driver to deboard the bus. Immediately, the driver of the said bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner and ran over him, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and fractures. His right leg was crushed by the front tyre of tl-re bus. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospitat, Secunderabad, and was admitted as an in-patient. His left leg was amputated up to knee level. Due to the injuries, the petitioner sustained a permarent disability, and as such, hled a claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO I -.

¶42

Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their counter, denying all the averments of the petition and contending that the driver of the RTC bus is not responsible for the accident.

¶43

To prove his case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the

¶44

¶45

RRN,J MAcM.a i,ro. 1s8 2 orHffi^,rlf.r:f#J I

¶46

respondents, neither oral nor documentar5r erridence was adduced.

¶47

After considering the claim and the counter tiied by the respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribuna_l has answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. The O.p. was partly allowed to award compensation of Rs.4,g9,OO0/_ with interest at Z%o per annum payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Dissatisfred with the quantum of compensation, M.A.C.M.A.No.1582 of 2Ol4 has been filed by the petitioner. Contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/RTC have filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3296 of 201 1.

¶48

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainll. contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and awarded meagre amount of compensation. Further, the Tribunal did not consider that the petitioner has become permanentiy disabled and unfit for anv lr'ork, more particulatly for his Carpentry work. The petitioner used to u-ork as skilled

¶50

¶51

RRN,,I Common^{Judgment ln} MACMA^{No.1582of2014 & 3296 of 2011}

¶52

Carpenter^{and earn Rs'5'O00/- p'm'' but the Tribunal has} considered^{the monthly incomeof the petitioneras Rs'2'500/-'} which is^{very meager,and tJle Tribunal ought to have taken'} the income^{at Rs.S,OOO/-Per month' karnedcounselfor the} petitioner further^{contended that apart from the lossof earning} capacity, the^{petitioner is entitled to grant of compensation} under the other^{heads' Hence, prayed to enhancethe} compensation^{awarded by the Tribunal'}

¶53

On the other^{hand, learned counsel for the respondents} contended that^{there is no negligenceon the part of the driver} of RTC Bus. In^{fact, the accident occurredwhile the petitioner} tried to board the running^{Bus and fell down alrd sustained} injuries. Hence, tJ.e petitioner^{alone was responsible for the} accident. It is further contended^{that the Tribunal erred in} coming to conclusion that the^{petitioner suffered lOO"/o} disability and awarding compensation^{on that basis. It is also} contended that the petitioner was working^{in aCentral} Government Undertaking Company. As^{per Section 47 of the} Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,^{Protection of} Rights and FuIl Participation) Act, 1995, the petitioner^is entitled to continue in the Job duly^protecting his^{pay. Hence,}

I :

jI I

MacMA no. r saz orcff trirr,*r# awarding compensation of Rs.4,5 O,OOO/_ towards Ioss of earnings is liable to be set aside.

¶58

I l. Insofar as the liability is concerned, on perusal of the evidence of the petitioner-injured, who examined as pW_I, narrated that he boarded the bus from the front door, but on the force of the driver, he got down the bus, immediately the driver drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and ran over him, due to which he fell down on the road. He sustained grievous injuries and fractures and his right leg was crushed by the front tyre of the bus. Exs.A-1 and A-2-certihed copies of the First Information Report and Charge-sheet show that the accident occurred in the manner as narrated by PW-1. The respondents^adducedno rebuttal evidence, contradicting the evidence^{of PW- 1.}

¶59

The method and manner in^{rvhich the accidenthas taken} place leaves no room for doubt that it^{rvas a caseof negligence} on the part of the driver of^RTC Bus.^{Hence, the Tribunal} arrived at the findings by considering^{the methodand malner} in which the accident has taken^{place, and the liabilityfixed} on both the respondents^{jointl-v and severallv is reasonable} and proper.

¶60

¶61

RRN,] Common^ludgmentln MACMA^{No1582of 2014 & 3296 of 2011}

¶62

Insofar^{as the compensationis concerned' the petitioner} claimedhewasaskilledCarpenterearningRs.5,00o/-per month. But,^{as rightly held by the Tribunal' the petitioner'} cannot do his^{carpentry work like as earlier' As per the} evidence of^{PW-2, it cal be understood that the amputation} would result in a loss^{of earningsto the extent of 1007o' as the} petitioner would not be in a^{positionto do carpentrywork,} which involves sitting, walking^{and squatting.For the said} reason, the professional disability^{has to be taken as 1OO%.}

¶63

14, Further, learned counsel for^{the petitioner has submitted} that the left leg of the petitioner was amputated^{upto knee} level. The petitioner worked as a Carpenter, and could^have earned more than Rs.S,OOO/- per month, but the Tribunal^did not consider the income even as Rs.S,OOO/-

¶64

Having considered the material on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly earnings of the petitioner from Rs.2,5OOl- to Rs.6,OOO/-. As per the decision of the Hon'Lrle Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethir, the annual income of the petitioner including future prospects would come to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.6,OOO/-⁺

'-2017(6)^{l70 (SC)}

RRN,J

,o.ro *o.rru, orto#tri:gffill

¶69

40% x l2). Since the petitioner is aged about 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is ,15, as per Sorrla Venna case2. In view of Ex.A7/disabilit5r certificate and the above findings, 100% is to be considered on account of disablement. Thus, the total lo,ss of future earnings on account of disability would come to Rs.l5,l2,OOO/- (1,00,800/- x t5 x tOO%).

¶70

Insofar as the compensation to be awarded under the other heads, according to the petitioner, he sustained a crush injury. As per the evidence of PW.2, the left leg was amputated. For using artihcial limbs to^{the petitionerfor day} to day life, in view of the changed^{circumstances,the Tribunal} had awarded ar amount^{of Rs.10,0OO/- towards loss of future} amenities of life,^{which is meager. Hence, considering the} evidence of PWs.l^{to 3, this Court is inclined to enhancethe} amount from^{Rs.1O,OOO/- to Rs'1,OO,OOO/-under the head of} loss of future^{amenitiesof life'}

¶71

The Tribunal^{has rightlyawarded a sum of Rs'2S'OOO/-} under the head^{of Pain and Suffering'Rs' 1'O2O/- torvards} Medical Expenditure^{and Rs'3,OOO/- torvards Incidental} Expenditure.^{Hence, no interferenceis requiredby this Court'}

¶72

'^{(zoog)o sccrzr}

¶73

,/-

¶74

RRN'J Common^ludBmentln MACMA^{No.1582of 2014 & 3295of 2011}

I I I I Ij i

I I I I t ! i I

j i iI I I I I

The Petitioner

¶80

1S entitled^{to comPensationas shown}

¶81

below:

¶82

Head	Ao.ouat^awarded byTribuaal	Anoutrt^awarded bythisCourt
Lossoffuture^earmngson accountof^disabilitY	Rs.+,SO,OOO7-	Rs.15,12,OOO/-
Lossof future^amenrtresof life	Rs.10,o0O/-	Rs.1,00,OO0/-
Medical Expenditure	Rs.r,020/-	Rs.1,02Ol-
PainandSuffering	Rs.25,O0O/-	Rs.25,00O/-
Incidental Expenditure	Rs.3,OO0/-	Rs.3,00O/^-
Total	Rs.4,89,020/-	Rs.16,41,O2Ol- Roundedoffto Rs.16,41,OOO/-

¶83

Insofar as the interest is concerned, the Tribunal^has granted interest @ 7o/o per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.4,89,O00/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit. However, this Court awards interest @ 7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced arnount from the date of petition till realization,

¶84

In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.16,4L.OOO/ - to',vards compensation. Though the petitioner has claimed only Rs.5,OO,O00/ , invoking the principle of just compensation, and in vielr. of the larv laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesfr as. Rajbir Singh3, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empor,vered to grant compensation beyond the claimed

rMAN U/SC/04 80/2013

RRNJ

common Judgrfient^ln MACMA tlo.15E2^{of 2014& 3296 of2011}

¶89

arrrount. However,^{the petitioner/ appellantshall pay the} deficit Court^{fee on the enhanced compensation'}

¶90

Accordingly,^{M.A'C'M'A No'1582 of 2Ol4 fiIed by the} petitioner is allowed,^{enhancingthe compensation amount} from Rb.4,89,oOO/-^{to Rs'16,41,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs} Forty One^{Thousand only)' The enhancedamount shall carry} interest @^{7.SYo per annum from the date of petition till the} date of rea-lisation.^{The respondents are directedto depositthe} arvarded amount^{along with interestald costs' after deducting} the amount,^{if any already deposited'within (02) monthsfrom} the date of^{receiptof a copy of this judgment'There shall be no} order as to^costs

¶91

M.A.c.M. ANO.3^{296 0F 2011}

¶92

22.TheaboveM.A'C.M.A.wasfiledbytherespondents/RTC b-r contending^{that the Tribunal failed toconsider the} contributory^{negligence on the part of the petitioner and that} the Tribunal^{erred inawardingcompensationand au'arded} excessive compensation'^{In view of the findings in M A'C M'A} No. 1582 ot^{2014, this M'A'C'M'ANo'3296of 2011 is liable to} be dismissed^{as no evidence either oral or documentan' was} adduced by^{the respondentswith regard tocontributor)'} negligence^{and other aspectsclearly discussedas above'}

¶93

¶94

RRN,J

¶95

vrcrvre iro. rsa2 orc2o#Hi1l1.:l.#Jl

¶96

Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No.3296 of 2Otl filed by the Appellants/R espondents/RTC is disrmissed. There shall be no order as to co sts.

¶97

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending both the appeals shall stand closed.

¶98

['i.- ! r*.' il ;
[/ ::' -ff,t.
I n.
II *;
z
ti
i
II ,To,
!
I 1. The XXlt
i
tl
2. One CC to Sri T V|SWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC]
i
3. One cc to Sri THooM
4. Two CD Copies
4
i+
,i.
t:-4 :'

¶99

SDAMOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶100

SECTION OFFICER

¶101

The XXlt Additional Chief Judge, Cum-Chairman MACT_Cum Criminal
Court, Hyderabad.
2. One CC to Sri T V|SWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One cc to Sri THooM sRtNtvAS, eoroc.te toFrjct -
4. Two CD Copies
SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.ISgZ of 2014 AND

¶107

1 $E 5r,4I€
;,
t
o 1 2 F'B 202t zo
.L

-€-:=- :-o

¶108

MACMA No.3296 OF 2011

¶109

ALLOWTNG THE MACMA No.1582 OF 2014 AND

¶110

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.3296 OF 2011

¶111

G^a P 8,:.,iq$P+

¶112

.3 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA I AT HYDERABAD

¶113

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶114

PRESENT

¶115

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RA'ESHWARRAO

¶116

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL ISCELLAEOUS PEAL NO: 15 oF 2011 AND

¶117

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAEOUS^{APPEALNO.3296 OF 2OI1} MOTOR ACCID^{ENT CIVIL MISCEL} OUS APPE NO: 1582 OF 2014

¶118

t: :Between: ) isirisingala^{Devender,S/o. Ramulu,Occ Contract Labour in NFC R/o.3-47'} jKilasagiri, H.B. Colony, Hyderabad. ii ..'AppellanuPetitioner E AND 3.li t. te Depot Manager, APSRTC, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad. 2. Andhra Pradesh^{StateRoad,Transport Corporation, Representedby its} Managing Director,^{Mushirabad,Hyderabad' (Ownerof APSRTC8usBearing} No. AP-9-Z-7966) ...ResPondents

¶119

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCE LLAEOUS APPEALNO.32960F2011}

¶120

Between

¶121

The Depot Manager,^{APSRTC,BarkatpuraDepot, Hyderabad' (Ownerof} APSRTC Bus Bearing^{No. AP-92-7966)} 2. The Managing Director,^{Andhra PradeshState Road,Transport Corporation,} RTC X Ro;dJHyderabad.^{(Owner of APSRTC Bus BearingNo.AP-92-7966)} 4 ...APPellanUResPondent AND Occ Contract Labour in^{NFC R/o.3-47,} Sirisingala Devender,^{S/o. Ramulu,} Kilasagiri, H.B.^{Colony, Hyderabad.} ...ResPondenUPetitioner

¶122

! I F

¶123

:,! !

¶124

Appeal filed^{Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act againstthe Order and} decree in'M.v.o.P.No.2031^{0f 2008 dated 26.03.2010 0n the file of the courtof the} XXll Additional Chief^{Judge, Cum-ChairmanMACT-Cum} City Criminal Court at^Hyderabad

¶125

'bRDER:^{These appeal comingon for hearingand upon perusingthe groundso[} iibppeal, the Judgment^{and Decreeof the Lower Courtand the material papers in the} iiase^{anO upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. VISHWARUPA CHARY, Advocate} ,;for the Appellants in MACMA No.1582 OF 2014 AND^{Respondentin MACMA} lNo.eZsO OF 2011 and of Sri THOOM^{SRINIVAS, Advocate for the Respondents in} oMAClr,,tA No.ts82 ot 2014 and Appetlants in MAoMA No.3296 ol2o11. { J

¶126

F '1 1. This Court while Allowing^{the MACMA No.1582of 2014fixed by the petitioner}

¶127

.r is allowed, enhancing the compensation^{amount fromRs 4,89,000/-to} Rs.16,41,000/-^(Rupees Sixteen^{Lakhs forty one Thousand only);}

¶128

That the enhanced amount^{shall carry interest} @7.5^{per annum from the date} of petition till the date of realization;

¶129

That the respondents are^{directedto deposit the awarded amount alongwith} interest and costs, after deducting the^{amount, if any already deposited within} two months⁽⁰²⁾ from the date of^{receipt of a copyof this Judgment;}

¶130