HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1490
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The injured-claimant of O.P.No.358 of 2005 who filed the
claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation(for short, ‘APSRTC’) for the accident and the injuries sustained
from the crime bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2714 of Dubbaka Depot, dashed her from
behind on 14.10.2004 at 6.30 P.M. when herself and her sister Chandramma
working in a hotel were returning on the file of the learned Chairman of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mahaboobnagar, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for
the claim made of Rs.1,00,000/- since the tribunal awarded Rs.7,500/- with
interest at 7.5%p.a. by fixing contributory negligence of 50% on the part of
the claimant-injured in saying the First Information Report given by own brother
of the injured showing that the bus coming from opposite direction whereas in
the evidence the claimant deposed as if from behind besides the same version runs
contra, the chargesheet of police shows from behind and the record shows there
is a confusion from the bus coming from behind even in contribution to the
accident by the injured. It is impugning the same, the claimant preferred the
appeal not only for fixing contributory negligence but also for the
compensation awarded is utterly low and unjust, hence to set aside the award
and allow the appeal as prayed for. The learned counsel for the claimant
reiterated the same contentions during course of hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for
the APSRTC that the award of the tribunal is just and for this Court while
sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.
3. The parties hereinafter are referred to
as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
4.Now the points that
arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the finding
of the tribunal of there was contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant is not sustainable if so, with what observations?
2. Whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low and unjust and requires
interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so
with what just compensation to arrive and with what observations?
3. To what result?
POINT-1:
5. It
is proved from the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to Ex.A.2 would certificate
of the accident dated 14.10.2004 at about 6.30A.M., the brother of the injured
reported the occurrence to the police at 7.30 A.M. who registered the crime and
also filed chargesheet against the bus driver. No doubt in the First
Information Report the informant mentioned of the bus coming in opposite
direction. The chargesheet filed by the police and the evidence of P.W.1
clearly speaks the bus coming from behind. Even for arguments sake as observed
by the tribunal in para-7 of the award there was a little bit confusion on the
part of the claimant and the another person i.e. her sister Chandramma. The
finder of last opportunity always lies with the bus driver in controlling the
vehicle. Thus, it is difficult to say that there is 50% of contribution on the
part of the injured but for deposed a little confusion which is negligible if
not, taken at 10% thereby tribunal is not correct in saying 50% contribution on
the part of the injured. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
6. Now
coming to the quantum of compensation, no doubt there are no medical bills or
prescriptions, however, the Ex.A.2 medical certificate issued by the Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad and the evidence of PW.1 speak originally she was
provided first aid at Bangalore Government hospital and for better treatment
referred to Osmania General hospital where she was treated and later discharged
and later admitted in CDR hospital and treated as in-patient from 01.12.2004 to
27.12.2004, leave about the first examination on 27.10.2004 there, that is there from Ex.A.4 discharge ticket of
CDR hospital. The record shows she sustained a head injury which is described
as grievous in Ex.A.2 wound certificate and A.4 discharge ticket and also from A.5
out-patient card. P.W.1 also deposed the
same. It is therefrom she was referred to
the neurological wing for diagnosis and treatment. Thus, for the head injury described
as grievous though there is no fracture, it is just to fix the compensation for
the pain and suffering therefrom of Rs.20,000/- and for the two simple injuries
of Rs.4,000/- besides Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment; as the
Ex.A.4 discharge ticket shows she was treated as in-patient in CDR hospital for
27 days. First it is just to award Rs.10,000/-
towards transport and attendant charges and extra nourishment and Rs.6,000/- towards
loss of earnings; which all comes to Rs.50,000/- as just compensation, to
enhance from Rs.7,500/-. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.
POINT -3:
11. In the result, the appeal is
partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of
compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty
thousand only) with interest at 7½% p.a. from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit
with notice. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit within one month said amount
with interest from the date of judgment, failing which the claimant can execute
and recover. On such deposit or
execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There
is no order as to costs in the appeal.
________________________
Dr. B. SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date:
12.11.2014
