Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs P. Sridhar Rao

Madhava Reddy, J.—The Respondent standing at a milk booth on the morning of 26-2-1978 at 6.4.5 a.m. to collect his quota of milk, instead received an injury with a flange which flew off from an A.P.S.R.T.C. bus travelling from Mehdipatnam towards Sarojini Devi Hospital, fracturing his left femur and causing a lacerated injury. He was carried to the Osmania General Hospital and was admitted as an in-patient till 10.3.1978. At the hospital P.W. 2 Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. C.S. Reddy attended on him. Although he was discharged on 10.3.1978 he was required to attend the hospital for another six months to undergo follow-up treatment which lasted till 26.8.1978. He was advised thereafter not to carry heavy loads but to attempt carrying loads gradually. The Respondent laid a claim for compensation of Rs. 50.000/- against the Appellant. The A.P.S.R.T.C, a State Government undertaking, the Appellant, which is the owner of the vehicle, responsible for the accident, pleaded that the defect in the vehicle was a latent one which could not be noticed and it was a pure accident and the injury caused to the Respondent was not due to any rash and negligent driving on the part of R.W. 1 or proper maintenance of the vehicle. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. The claimant examined himself and the Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. C.S. Reddy in support of his claim. For the Appellant the driver and the Mechanical Foreman of the corporation were examined as R. Ws. 1 and 2. The Claims Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, found that the vehicle was not properly maintained, that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and that it was not a pure accident but on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle not properly maintained, it, therefore, held the Appellant to be responsible for the injury caused to the Respondent and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,200/- as compensation.

That the Respondent suffered the injury on account of the flange of the Appellant''s vehicle flying off from the vehicle and hitting him while he standing at the milk booth, is not in dispute. On account of the flange hitting the Appellant, his left femur was fractured. He also suffered a lacerated injury 3"x 1/4" x 1". As a result of that, he suffered shock and also haemorrhage. He had to be shifted to the hospital, when he was still under shock. He was an in-patient from 26.2.1978 to 10.3.78 and had continuously attended the hospital for another period of six months. Even thereafter normalcy of his limbs was not restored. According to the Doctor (P.W. 2),'' the knee became stiff and the stiffness of the knee joint became permanent. Terminal 30% of keen flexion was restricted. This was a permanent partial disability. There was swelling of the left foot and the Respondent developed a limp. From now on, he has to always walk with a limp and cannot undertake long distance walking. He was not fit for strenuous duties any longer. P.W. 2 specifically noted that he would not be able to travel by bus. The Respondent is a typist cum-clerk in the Pay and Accounts Office drawing a salary of Rs. 559.15 ps. The Doctor also opined that he would experience pain if he were to exert himself or undertake long-distance walking. He, therefore, advised him against any exertion. He was also of the view that there was no permanent cure for this disability. This was the best that he could hope for in the circumstances. The loss of efficiency of the Respondent, the Doctor estimated, was 50% Although it is contended before me that the injury was the result of sheer accident, I am unable to agree with the same. Any public transport vehicle is required to be maintained in a proper condition. Otherwise it will be a hazard not only to the passengers travelling in the vehicle but also to all those using the public thoroughfare as of right. A corporation such as A.P.S.R.T.C., a public undertaking, is expected to maintain its vehicles in a roadworthy condition and carry out maintenance, checkup and replacement of worn-out parts at regular intervals to avoid such accidents. It is in evidence that the flange of the gear flew off at great speed from the vehicle and hit the Respondent who was standing on the foot-path, at a distance of 20 feet away. Unless the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed, the flange could not have flew off to a distance of 20 feet and bit a passenger standing on the other side of the road. If the vehicle were to be properly maintained, the flange, which is very integral and essential part of a vehicle and which has to be kept in a good condition, could not have got loose from it. It is not as if the flange was broken. Obviously the maintenance of the vehicle was not properly taken care of. Although the Corporation has examined R.W. 1, the Mechanical Foreman, it has not produced any record as to when this particular vehicle was last checked up and the different parts, including the flange or the universal joint or the shaft, were attended to. After all the different parts of a motor vehicle, more so of a public transport vehicle like a passenger bus, have to be maintained periodically, have to be replaced from time to time. Record to that effect would certainly be maintained by the office. No such record has been produced. In the absence of production of such record, an inference adverse to the corporation must be drawn. The fact that the flange flew off from the vehicle while it was in motion itself speaks of the negligent manner in which the vehicle was maintained. The principle res ipsa loquitur applies. I do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the lower court that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and that the accident was due to the fact that the vehicle was not maintained properly. Hence the Appellant is liable to compensate the Respondent for the injury sustained by him.

From the facts and evidence referred to above, it is clear that there is a permanent partial disability caused to the Respondent as a result of the accident. It is not as if he would suffer pain whenever he exerts himself. He is a young man of 31 years and he would have to certainly exert himself in his future life. He has been left with a permanent limp. He has to go all the way from Mehdipatnam to his office at Moazzam Jahi Market, a distance of nearly six to seven miles. There is no hope of a permanent cure. Even according to the Doctor, there is a loss of efficiency to the extent of 50%. In these circumstances I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 13,200/- awarded by way of compensation is high and calls for interference with the discretion of the Appellate court by this Court.

Mr. Anand Rao, however, strenuously contended that when Rs. 50/- towards the expenditure for transport, Rs. 200/-towards special damage, Rs. 300/- towards general damage and Rs. 7,000/- towards the injury and permanent disability caused to him has been awarded, no further amount of Rs. 3,000/- could be awarded towards compensation for loss of earning power. He especially relied upon the evidence of R.W. 2 in this regard. He has stated that on account of the permanent disability there is no corresponding loss of earning capacity, for the Respondent is a Typist-cum-Clerk. I am unable to agree with this contention. In determining the compensation payable for injury suffered by an accident, what has to be kept in view is not a present job which the injured person is holding but what a person, who - would have suffered any such injury would have normally earned if he had not met with the present accident. The Respondent could certainly think of undertaking jobs which involved physical exertion and strain and hope to earn more. His capacity to undertake such a job is now put to an end on account of this accident. Further even for attending to the present job, he will have to spend more than what he would have otherwise spent if he had not met the accident. The loss of earnings could only refer to loss of net earnings. Even if his chances of promotion were not impaired, but as he cannot undertake journey by bus or other public means of transport, he would have to have necessarily make his own arrangements for transport which necessarily involve higher expenditure. Consequently his net earnings would be cut down. This being a permanent disability though partial this additional expenditure will continue throughout his life. Therefore if the Tribunal in its discretion has chosen to award a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation under loss of earning power, I do not think it has committed any error of law so as to warrant interference in this appeal.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.