JUDGMENT:

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2011 in MVOP No. 1054 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the 2nd respondent/APSRTC represented by Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad, has preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with proportionate costs and interest. For convenience the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.

2. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, r/w. Rule 455 of the AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for injuries sustained in an accident held on 09.10.2008 at about 11.45 P.M. while travelling in an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-2784 from Vijayawada to Tanuku, along with her father, at Kanikaram Village on NH-5. The 1st respondent drove the bus rashly and negligently hit the stationed lorry, sustaining injuries to the left leg tibia and fibula of the right leg tibia and fibula and fracture injury to the left patella.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a written statement contending that there is no rash or negligence on the part of the first respondent. At the time of the accident, it was dark; the lorry was parked in the road margin, there was no proper lighting, and a hook to the lorry on his backside margin came into contact with the passenger door of the bus, thereby it damaged. Some who were sitting unsteadily sustained injuries since they fell on the bus. As a result, there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, and she prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 5 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined. No documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the respondents. After considering the material evidence on record, the Tribunal has decided that the first respondent drove the bus rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident, awarding compensation an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

5. Heard learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the appellant herein, and learned counsel for the claimant, who is the first respondent herein.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the driver of the lorry was alone responsible for causing the accident and the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal is improper and also erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant has supported the finding of the Tribunal.

8. Now the points for consideration are whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and whether the compensation fixed by Tribunal is just and reasonable.

POINT:

9. In support of the case, the claimant herself was examined as PW-1. She deposed in her evidence about the manner of the accident. According to her evidence, while she, along with her father, was travelling in an APSRTC bus plying from Vijayawada to Tanuku, NH-5, when they reached Kaikaram Centre, Unguturu Mandal, the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the bus, drove in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the stationed lorry. Based on the report lodged by the father of the claimant, a case in Crime No. 155 of 2008 was registered against the bus driver. The attested copy of the FIR and complaint is marked as Ex.A.1. As seen from the record, the 2nd respondent/appellant has not disputed the claimant's case concerning sustaining injuries in the accident. It is also evident by Ex.A.2 - attested copy of the wound certificate. To prove the injuries suffered by her, the claimant examined the Civil Assistant Surgeon as PW-5.

10. The 2nd respondent, duri