Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 165
IN THE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V R K Krupa Sagar, J.
Thorati Sarveswara Rao, Hyd. – Appellant
Versus
Pirati Appa Rao E G Dist Another and Others – Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1804/2012
Decided On : 03-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Eluru Venkateswara Rao
For the Respondent: Vinod Kumar Tarlada
The court emphasized that compensation for serious injuries must reflect the trauma and loss of amenities, correcting the inadequate award by the Claims Tribunal.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against inadequacy of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal - The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.83,500/- for injuries sustained by a minor due to negligent driving of a bus, which was challenged for being inadequate. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Compensation - The court emphasized that serious injuries impose physical limitations and emotional scars, necessitating just compensation that reflects the trauma and loss of amenities suffered by the victim. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The minor boy sustained grievous injuries in a bus accident on 06.05.2007, resulting in permanent disability. The father filed a claim for Rs.2,00,000/- which was partly allowed by the Claims Tribunal. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Claims Tribunal's approach to compensation was incorrect and awarded a total of Rs.1,80,350/- with interest. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was just and adequate given the severity of the injuries sustained by the minor. (Paras 14, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and awarded inadequate compensation, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach to compensation for serious injuries. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced to Rs.1,80,350/- with interest.
JUDGMENT :
V R K Krupa Sagar, J.
Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the father/ natural guardian representing his injured minor son preferred this Appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 13.09.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.787 of 2008.
2. Respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending bus and respondent No.2-APSRTC owns the bus.
3. Heard arguments of Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, the learned counsel representing Sri Eluru Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-APSRTC.
4. The following facts are required to be noticed:
Mr. T.Sarveswara Rao was a boy aged 10 years. On 06.05.2007 he, along with his family members boarded APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-8042 at Tadepalligudem and was to reach Hyderabad. However, the driver at the steering wheel was unmindful of a stationed lorry on the National Highway and by virtue of his high speed and rash or negligent driving dashed on the back of it near Denduluru Petrol Bunk during the intervening night of 6/7.05.2007. Several people sustained injuries including the body. He was initially treated at Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and was thereafter shifted to Mahalakshmi Hospital where surgeries were conducted on his left leg. Concerning the subject matter accident Crime No.45 of 2007 was registered at Denduluru Police Station. A charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the offending APSRTC bus. The boy stated to have acquired permanent disability. Representing his minor son, the father/the natural guardian filed O.P.No.787 of 2008 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Respondent No.1 therein being the driver was expected to put up his defence but he did not choose to do so and he failed to appear and contest and was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 therein/APSRTC filed its counter wherein it denied the narration made in the petition and pleaded perfect driving on part of its driver and attributed negligence to the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TW-577 stating that the driver of the said lorry suddenly stopped the lorry on the road and he did it without applying any signals and that was the cause of accident. The claim made was described as excessive. Finally, it sought dismissal of the claim.
5. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 6/7.5.2007 mid night at about 12.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8042 driven its driver/1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. At the trial, the father of the victim boy testified as PW.1 and the doctor who treated the injured boy testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked.
7. The driver of the offending RTC bus though did not put up his contest he testified as RW.1. No documentary evidence was adduced for respondents.
8. After considering the entire material on record and the submissions made on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal evaluated the rival contentions as to whether the accident was result of negligence on part of the lorry driver or the negligence on part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. On considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and F.I.R. in Ex.A.1 and charge sheet in Ex.A.4 it concluded that the accident was the result of rash or negligent driving of driver of offending APSRTC bus. It stated that he, along with his owner/respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to shoulder the duty to pay compensation to the victim boy.
9. After
