B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are the product of the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Khammam in O. P. No. 15 of 1989 dated 8-6-1990. They having common questions of law and facts are heard together and being disposed of by means of this common judgment as the convenience warrants.

( 2 ) THE appellant in C. MA. No. 755 of 1991 is the claimant whereas the appellants in c. M. A. NO. 1281 of 1990 are the respondents in the claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ). A claim was laid by the claimant for recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered by him due to the motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the 1st respondent, driver of the APSRTC bus no. AEZ 1931 which occurred on 5-12-1988 at 9 p. m. near Dongachinthalu at Mincept engineering Company, Khammam on khammam-Ananthapuram road which the claimant was driving the tractor-cum-trailer no. ATO 1771 and APH 8568. Respondents 2 and 3 are the owners of the bus. Only the third respondent filed the written statement but not the other respondents. The resistance to the claim petition by controversies of the contesting 3rd Respondent has been with reference to the alleged negligence of the driver, 1 st Respondent, in causing the accident, the quantum of compensation claimed and the real negligence on the part of the claimant himself in causing the accident.

( 3 ) SMT. K. Vedavathi, learned Advocate for the respondents, who argued the matter along with Smt. A. Vyjayanthi, has added a further contention in C. M. A. No. 1281 of 1990 that the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident adding to his negligence in causing the accident. Mr. M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned advocate for the claimant, while supporting the award and the findings has questioned the adequacy of the compensation given by the Tribunal in spite of the clear evidence and the findings in favour of the claimant both in regard to the injuries and the disability suffered by him. It must be said to the credit of both the learned Advocates that their efforts in not sparing any pains to investigate into the matter has lent lot of assistance to this Court in disposing of the real controversies in these two appeals.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the accident occurred while the claimant was driving the tractor-curn-trailer no. ATO 1771 and APH 8568 and while the 1 st Respondent was driving the APSRTC bus No-AEZ 1931. It is established that both the vehicles came into collision at one point or the other. The theory that the bus did not hit the tractor has been rightly dis-believed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the version of the 1st Respondent driver in his testimony that the front right side rear tyre of the tractor hit the bus is not in confirmity with the theory in the written statement and is not reliable. Adding to this, the 1st Respondent did not report the fact of the accident to the police in spite of the statutory obligation to do it. On the other hand, one Vadde Narasimah rao lodged the F. I. R. Ex. A. l before the police. He was one of the persons travelling in the tractor at the relevant time. It is also not on record in any form that the 1st Respondent reported the matter to his official superiors in regard to the nature of the accident, cause of the accident or the negligence on the part of the claimant himself in causing the accident. The evidence in the case clearly discloses that the bus while driving in a rash manner by the 1 st Respondent dashed the tractor on a public road during night where the driver of the public transport is expected to be more careful and diligent than in ordinary circumstances. The contention that the tractor had only one light is also a later thought. The tribunal has given adequate, convincing and cogent reasons in support of the finding that the accident was due to the negligence of the 1st respondent driver of the bus and not of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document