JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.01.2013 in MVOP No. 350 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the APSRTC, the respondent in MVOP preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.

3. The petitioner filed the claim under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries he sustained in Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 16.04.2012.

4. The petitioner's case is that on 16.04.2012 at about 02.15 AM, the petitioner, along with his colleague, reached APSRTC Bus stand, Nandyal, to go to Tamil Nadu on duty. When he was about to get onto the APSRTC Bus of respondent carefully by putting his leg on the footboard, the driver of the offending APSRTC bus suddenly reversed the bus without any precautions and without hearing the calls made by him. As a result, he fell near the footboard. The left front tyre of the offending bus passed over his right leg and was crushed up to the knee point. He also sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal, after that he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. From there to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment where his right leg was amputated below the knee. He spent more than Rs. 4,00,000/- towards medicines and other charges. The petitioner was a permanently disabled person. A case was registered in crime number 33 of 2012 for the offence under Section 338 IPC.

5. The respondent filed his counter statement disputing the profession, income, the grievousness of the injuries, the medical treatment the petitioner availed and the quantum of compensation. The respondent pleads that when the driver was reversing the bus without observing it, the petitioner tried to get into the bus, and the accident occurred; there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner only. The petitioner sustained injuries in the accident while in the course of his employment, and the employer of the petitioner is liable to pay the compensation.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. Before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 5 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A11 and Ex.C1. On behalf of respondents, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.B1.

7. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- against the respondent liable to pay the compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal went wrong in concluding that the injuries occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus driver; the accident occurred solely due to the claimant's negligence; the Tribunal failed to see that there was contributory negligence on both sides. The Tribunal below failed to see that without proper consideration of the issues awarded the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum, which is excessive and can be modified.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal.

11. Now the points for determination:

(I) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent offending vehicle's driver?

(II) Whether the compensation amount awarded is just and reasonable, or it r