IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by its Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Kasunuru Moshe S/o Daveedu – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.2415 OF 2013 & 2471 OF 2013
Decided on : 26-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
The appeal in MACMA No.2415/2013 is preferred by the appellant/APSRTC challenging the award dated 11.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.328/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Prodduturu, Kadapa District, whereunder the learned Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,53,018/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.10.2008.
2. The appeal in MACMA No.2471/2013 is preferred by the appellant/claimant, challenging the above award seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.
4. As seen from the record, the claim petition was filed U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.10.2008.
5. The case of the claimant is that on 03.10.2008 at about 06.00 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on a TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 04 6082 from Prodduturu to Chapadu; one Papa Sab was riding the motor cycle; the claimant was the pillion rider; when the motor cycle reached a place near agricultural marketing check post, bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1150 belonging to the respondent/APSRTC came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle; the claimant and the rider of the motor cycle fell down; the claimant sustained injury to right leg; the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Proddutur; he was referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool; later he was shifted to Mythri Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad; he was treated till 25.11.2008; the claimant underwent operation, plates were inserted and skin grafting was done; the claimant also took treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad; he incurred Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment; Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges; the claimant suffered dis-figuration of the right lower leg, and as a result, he sustained permanent disability; prior to accident he was doing coolie work; now he is unable to attend coolie work; hence, filed petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the injured, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation; contended that the accident was occurred due to negligence of driver of the motor cycle; the driver of APSRTC bus shifted the injured persons to the Government Hospital; police registered a case against the bus driver due to influence of the claimant; there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus.
7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
8. To substantiate his claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W-1 and placed Exs.A-1 to A-12. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent/APSRTC.
9. The learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence of the claimant and Exs.A-1 to A-12 which includes FIR (Ex.A-1) and police report (charge sheet) (Ex.A-3), held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1150.
10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence of petitioner and documents placed by him, assessed the compensation for personal injuries at Rs.5,53,018/-, and awarded interest @ 7.5% pe
Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others
Deductions for personal expenses in compensation claims for injuries are not justified; courts must ensure just compensation reflecting the claimant's loss.
The court established that in cases of composite negligence, a victim should not bear any contributory negligence and is entitled to full compensation from the negligent parties.
Compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established on the preponderance of probability, emphasizing the need for just compensation for injuries sustained due to negligent driving.
The court established that compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act should be assessed based on the preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof, and that enhancing compensation beyond th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.