Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Komaram Venkatarama Raju,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2016 Between:

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another. ....Appellants and Komaram Venkatarama Raju ....Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 01.02.2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO :

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2016 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who are the respondents in M.V.O.P.No.1893 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein claiming the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 11.09.2012 near petrol bunk, Mondikunta Village, Aswapuram Mandal on the way from Manuguru to

Kothagudem at 5.45 pm. It was stated in the petition that, on the said day while the claimant along with his sister Madhavi was returning from Manuguru to Bollorigudem on a motorcycle after attending a function at Manuguru, when they reached near petrol bunk of Mondikunta Village, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29Z 475 came in opposite direction with high speed and dashed the claimant's motorcycle. In the said accident, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture and crush injuries on his right leg and the pillion rider Madhavi also sustained injuries. He was shifted to Dr.Sudharshan's Hospital, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, and thereafter to Dr.Krishna Prasad Hospital, Kothagudem Speciality Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad. He underwent surgery in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. He was a student of B.

Tech and his career was affected due to the accident. The case was contested by the appellants herein stating that the claimant did not make the owner of the motorcycle on which he was proceeding, and the insurer as parties to the petition and, as such, the petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also alleged that the claimant was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.

"1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries of the injured K.Venkatarama Raju, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 475) by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?"

The claimant examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A17 on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents therein.

The Tribunal, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. It, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.9,95,000/- by its award dated 18.06.2015.

The present appeal is filed mainly on the ground of contributory negligence of the claimant, who was driving the motorcycle. In the case of contributory negligence, the respondents therein ought to have adduced the evidence. But, no evidence was adduced on their behalf. Even though an attempt is made challenging the quantum of compensation, in the absence of any sustainable ground in support of the challenge, the quantum also cannot be held to be unjust. The Tribunal examined the evidence of P.W.2 - the Orthopedic Surgeon, P.W.3 - the Plastic Surgeon, and P.W.4 - Billing Manager of Yashoda Hospital. It, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also awarded towards loss of future earnings and Rs.

2,50,000/- for the extra nourishment, traveling and attendant charges. The said amounts are based on acceptable evidence and this Court feels that the award of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 01.02.2016 vs