Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. S. Vinod Kumar

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO MACMA No.545 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao) Impugning the award dated 02.09.2015 of the tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2013 passed by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court (for short, 'Tribunal'), Hyderabad, the respondents-the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'), rep. by its Managing Director and the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Miyapur I Depot, preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein is the injured claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2013 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, 'the Act') for a claim of Rs.38,00,000/-(Rupees thirty eight lakhs only), against the appellants herein for the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 13.10.2012 at about 5.30 P.M. near Metro Water Works, Hyderabad. The claim was made with the following averments:- that while he was going slowly on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 28CB 2756, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8799 which belongs to the Corporation, as a result of which he suffered multiple fractures and various other multiple blunt injuries all over the body and completely bedridden despite taking treatment in Apollo Hospitals at KPHB colony and Jubilee Hills, and that he incurred huge amounts for treatment besides losing earnings and also lost future prospects including marriage.

3. The appellant-Corporation opposed the claim denying the manner in which the accident is stated to have occurred, the nature of injuries, any negligence of bus driver and also disputed the quantum of

compensation.

4. At the trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 including the two doctors who treated the claimant were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 including disability certificate issued by P.W.4 as Ex.A.6 and medical bills for Rs.3,76,815.50 ps (Three lakh seventy six thousand eight hundred and fifteen only) as Ex.A.8 are got marked on behalf of the claimant. The Corporation did not adduce any separate oral or documentary evidence on behalf of respondents to the claim petition.

5. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence and referring to some of the decisions of the Apex Court, the tribunal allowed the claim in part by awarding Rs.27,45,000/-(Rupees twenty seven lakh forty five thousand only) with interest at 9%p.a. from the date of filing of petition till realisation and with costs fixing liability on both the appellants herein.

6. The contentions raised in the grounds of appeal as well as those urged during the course of hearing in nutshell are that the compensation granted by the tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, that the tribunal failed to see the contributory negligence on the part of the respondent herein while crossing the road suddenly and negligently without taking any precautionary measures, that the tribunal failed to see that the insurer and owner of the motor cycle are not made parties to his claim, that the tribunal failed to consider that no independent eye witness was examined to establish the negligence on the part of the bus driver and to corroborate the contents of Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 chargesheet as such they are of no use for reliance to prove the version of P.W.

1-injured; that the tribunal also erred in arriving at such excessive compensation by considering salary, medical expenditure, loss of earnings, future treatment, pain and sufferance, attendant charges, transport charges and disability without proper evidence and in proper perspective. Even the rate of interest awarded at 9%p.a.

excessive that also needs to be reduced to 6% and hence, to set aside the award of the tribunal.

7. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellantCorporation before admission of the appeal and perused the material on record.

8. On perusal of the record, there is no factual dispute with regard to the occurrence, place, date and time of accident. Further, it is proved from the evidence on record adduced by the claimant that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver but not due to fault of the claimant. Furthermore, from the injuries he sustained, there is clear loss of earning capacity and avocation particularly from the head injury with resultant loss of memory, slackness of physical movements besides inability to move independently due to numbness and tremors of limbs. Thus, the permanent disability of about 75% as assessed and deposed by the P.W.4 is credible and reliable in proof of it. Therefrom even so far as the quantum of compensation arrived at and awarded by the tribunal is concerned, there is no scope left to interfere with.

9. Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is to be considered as excessive. Though rate of interest to be awarded in a given case is within the discretion of the tribunal, but the said discretion has to be exercised justly and a reasonable rate should be awarded. The appellate Court can interfere with the same to modify it to a reasonable rate. Now-a-days, nationalized banks are not offering interest at 9%p.a. even long term F.D.Rs. From the settled propositions of law including from the latest expression of the Apex Court in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[1] by taking note of steep fall in bank lending rates in the recent past, the interest is awarded at 7.5%p.a. as reasonable though in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] interest awarded is only at 6%p.a. and in the latest expression of the three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[ ] , it is held categorically that it is reasonable to award rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest is reduced to 71⁄2% p.a. from 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Since the area of correction of the award is confined to a very limited extent of modifying the rate of interest and with a view to cut short the unnecessary time delay and costs involved, we have not put the respondent on notice.

11. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is disposed of before admission while confirming the finding of the tribunal on rash and negligent driving of bus driver causing the accident and also on the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal however reducing the rate of interest from 9%p.a. to 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition filed before the tribunal till date of realization. Rest of the award holds good. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

____________________________________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO _________________________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Date:31.03.2016 vvr [1] (2005) 6 SCC 236

[2] 2009 ACJ 1298 [3] 2013(4)ALT 35(SC)