Gali Krishna Murthy vs General Manager, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd.

This appeal was filed by the claimant-injured against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-1995 in OP No.614 of 1993 on the file of the Chairman (I Additional District Judge) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guntur, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-awarded by the Tribunal below for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 2-4-1993 when the petitioner was travelling in RTC bus bearing No.AAZ 7000 to go to Macherla, and as there was no accommodation in the bus, he sat on the top of the bus at the instructions of the conductor, and when the bus crossed Uppalpadu village, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it hit a chapata (bridge) on the road, as a result of the impact, the petitioner and some others fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla and later he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntnr for expert treatment, and one of the injured persons died in the Government Hospital. The petitioner sustained grievous injury on his spinal cord and suffered multiple fractures and other injuries all over the body. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs.2,500/-per month aged about 27 years and was an agriculturist. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation.

The respondents have resisted the claim denying that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus. They also denied that the conductor of the bus has ever pennilted the petitioner to travel on the top of the bus. They disputed the avocation, age and income of the petitioner and prayed to reject the claim of the petitioner.

The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

It appears that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal below has lost sight of the provisions of Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. Sub-section (2) of Section 123 expressly prohibits that no person shall travel on the running board or on the top or on the bonnet of a motor vehicle. The plea of the petitioner that on the instructions of the Conductor of the bus, he travelled on the top of the bus is unsustainable in the absence of any admission by the conductor, who was examined as RW1, particularly in view of the express prohibition by the statute. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons 1 am of the considered view that the petitioner himself has contributed in the occurrance of the accident to the extent of 25% and 75% negligence is attributable to the driver of the bus RW2, inasmuch as he was aware that some passengers are travelling on the top of the bus.

Coming to the quantum of compensation awardable to the petitioner, based on the evidence of the doctor, PW2 who treated him, and the other material placed before it, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/-in all.

Coming to the earnings of the claimant, I am inclined to assess the income of the petitioner at Rs.900/- as an agriculturist, in view of the decision of this Court in The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Vs. Shafiya Khatoon and Others, . The petitioner was aged 27 years and therefore, the multiplier that is applicable is 17. Thus the loss of earnings due to 75% permanent disability comes to Rs.1,37,700/-. If the compensation under other heads is assessed, the claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,0007-, as claimed in the OP. But since I have already held that the claimant has contributed 25% negligence in the occurrence of the accident, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,12,500/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition fill the date of realisation.

The appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The Tribunal shall adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Lilaben Udesing Gohel, Shyamala Shashidharan Nayyar and Others, Pramilaben Narendra Bhai Patel and Others, Ramabhai Shankarbhai Chavda, Lilaben and Others, Kantaben Anil Kumar Patel and Others, Motor Vahan Durghatna Sanghthan, Nadiad and Others and Shardaben Chandubhai Patel and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, Hemraj Loduram Rajpur and Another, Nandubhai Ambalal Thakkar and Others, Ganibhai Ambabhai Vora and Another, Kaji Gulam Nabi Sheikh and Others, Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. and Others, State of Gujarat and Others and Bachusha Dadusha and Others, , in respect of the investment.