HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.548 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, challenging the award and decree dated 03.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.372 of 2015 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,22,720/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum, for the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant was a shepherd and on 07.10.2013 he was proceeding to Chincholi-B village after grazing sheep and goats by walk and when he reached at Maheswara School, at about 21.30 hours, all of a sudden one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28Z-2595 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the claimant from his backside due to which the claimant fell down and sustained multiple injuries including amputation of right lower limb. The Police, Sarangapur registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2013 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of TSRTC Bus and subsequently filed a charge sheet under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. The claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver and awarded compensation of Rs.7,22,720/- together interest @ 7.5% per annum.

3. The Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-corporation contended that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver; that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the claimant as per Ex.A7; that no cogent evidence was produced regarding age, occupation, and income; and that the Tribunal was not justified in applying multiplier ‘13’. It is further argued that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.7,22,720/- which is over and above the amount claimed by the claimant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent No.1 herein submits that the Tribunal after analyzing the entire evidence granted just and reasonable compensation and the same does not warrant any interference.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A careful examination of the record discloses that the documentary evidence, in the form of FIR clearly establishes the involvement of the RTC bus and negligence of its driver. There is no material to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Therefore, the finding on negligence does not call for any interference. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month keeping in view the nature of avocation of the claimant. This assessment is consistent with the settled principles and the same cannot be termed unreasonable. The disability certificate (Ex.A7) issued by the Medical Board shows that the claimant suffered 90% permanent disability due to amputation of the right lower limb. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘13’ based on the age mentioned therein. Having regard to the nature of disability and the evidence on record, the computation made by the Tribunal is in accordance with settled principles.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the assessment made by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded does not appear excessive.

Therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned award.

9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE