The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor vehicle accident under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on evidence of rash and negligent driving.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is respondent/APSRTC and the respondent is petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.636 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appellant filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.03.2009.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows :

On 10.03.2009 the petitioner was proceeding to Kurnool in APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6696 and when the said bus reached near Cancer Hospital situated near Penchikalapadu village, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a lorry which was coming in opposite direction, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The respondent/APSRTC being the owner of the offending bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The respondent/APSRTC filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident and he was not having valid licence at the time of accident, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6696?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC bus and, accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part granting an amount of Rs.5,87,254/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/APSRTC preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% p.a. is also exorbitant.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the petitioner relied on his self-testimony as P.W.1 and also Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report, Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending APSRTC bus. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6, who are the doctors who treated him. On considering Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained two grievous and three simple injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal ri