*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.1647 of 2003 %15-07-2010 #G. Ramulu alias Venkat Ramulu ….Appellant Vs. $A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad. …. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C.Vikram Chandra Counsel for the Respondents: K. Madhava Rao <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.1647 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No.2311 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 21.10.2002, whereby and whreunder an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the learned Chief Judge under ‘no fault liability’. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-injured claimant filed the present appeal. The facts in brief are that on 23.7.2000, while the appellant was driving auto trolley bearing Registration No. AP 13 T 2808 and when he reached Tirumala Music Centre at Malakpet, an R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No. AAZ 8404, belonging to the respondent-Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and over took the appellant’s trolley from behind to the extreme left side, due to which the rear portion of the bus hit the auto trolley. Consequently, the auto turned turtle and fell on the appellant causing grievous injuries besides fracture of vertebra. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. The police also registered a case in crime No. 212/2000. It is stated that by virtue of the fracture sustained by him, the appellant was unable to move his lower limbs and he had to incur huge expenditure towards treatment. Hence, he filed the aforementioned O.P. before the learned Chief Judge seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. While resisting the claim of the appellant, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a common counter. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but when the appellant tried to overtake the bus from the left side, the auto trolley came into contact with the let side rear portion of the bus and over turned. It is also averred that the appellant was driving the auto trolley in a drunken state and due to the fault on the pat of the appellant alone the accident occurred. It also pleaded that the quantum of compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that too place on 23.7.2000 at 19.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 8404. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief? During trial, on behalf of the appellant, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining P.W.2, the doctor and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 was marked. On a consideration of the medico legal record produced by the Osmania General Hospital under Ex.B1, the learned Chief Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant point of time and since the appellant did not controvert the said fact by leading any evidence, the learned Chief Judge held that the appellant himself was responsible for the accident in question and he is not entitled for any compensation amount. However, it awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Chief Judge, the appellant- claimant preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Chief Judge having held that the appellant suffered a fracture of vertebra in the accident in question; that due to the impact of the said accident, his both limbs were paralysed and he also sustained permanent disability, erred in granting an amount Rs.25,000/- only as compensation. He further contended that even though the learned Chief Judge held that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol, the medico legal record produced by the Osmania General Hospital under Ex.B1 did not reveal the actual extent or quantity of the alcohol in his blood. While relying on Section 185 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), learned counsel would contend that since the extent of alcohol in the blood was not mentioned, it is not known as to whether the appellant was really incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle and since the learned Chief Judge did not consider that aspect the matter is liable to be remanded to the Chief Judge for fresh disposal. Section 185 of the Act reads thus: “Driving by a drunken person or by person under the influence of drugs:- whoever, while driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, (a) has, in blood, alcohol, exceeding 30 mg. Per 100 l. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or (b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both. In the instant case, the learned Chief Judge except stating that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle, did not mention anything in his order as to what is the actual extent of alcohol in the blood and as to whether it exceeded the permissible limit of 30mg. per 100 litre of blood so as to make the appellant incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, as contemplated under Section 185 of the Act. Hence, the matter is liable to be remanded to the learned Chief Judge for fresh adjudication on this aspect. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. The matter is now remanded to the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for fresh adjudication. The learned Chief Judge shall now hear and dispose of O.P. No.2311 of 2000 afresh. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:15.07.2010 pnb