JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 1173 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short “the tribunal”) the appellants/respondents 2 and 3 preferred this appeal questioning the award and the liability fastened on them.

2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) r/w 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that took place on 17.04.2011.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 17.04.2011 at about 11.45 AM, when the claimant, along with his wife going to his house on his bike, when he reached the traffic signal area at the police control room, one R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-1922, Route No. 60 ‘C’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending bus’) being driven by its driver, i.e. 1st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from Poorna Market towards the Civil Defence Junction side and dashed the claimant's bike, due to which, the claimant and his wife fell on the road. He received injuries on the left leg.

5. 1st Respondent, who is the offending bus driver, remained ex-parte.

6. The 3rd Respondent adopted the 2nd Respondent filed counter, wherein the respondents denied the manner and mode of the accident, the treatment and expenses incurred by the claimant, the source of income of the claimant, the aspect of fracture sustained by the claimant and the claim of the claimant. The respondents submitted that the 1st Respondent was driving the offending bus when the offending bus reached barrack junction, and the driver stopped the bus as there was a red signal. At that time, the motorcyclist came from the left side of the bus at very high speed, dashed against the front bumper and fell, and there was negligence on the part of the motorcyclist as he dashed the stationed bus.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he got examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e. the 1st Respondent and the claimant sustained injuries in the accident and awarded compensation Rs. 2,69,400/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No. 1 to 3, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties.

10. Learned counsel for appellants/respondents contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding abnormal compensation; the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant while driving on the road.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the point for determination is:

(I) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent?

(II) Whether the compensation amount awarded is just and reasonable?

POINT NO. I:

13. After careful reading of the material on record, this Court is of the view that there is no serious dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claimant was examined as PW-1, who narrated in his evidence about the manner of an accident. According to his evidence that on the date of the accident at about 11.45 AM, the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from Poorna market towards Civil Defence Junction, when he reached the traffic signal point at Police Co