The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor accident case based on the evidence of rash and negligent driving, injuries sustained, and medical expenses incurred.

JUDGMENT :

This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 15.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kakinada, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Tribunal as against the claim of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- made by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- against the respondents directing to deposit the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum within one month from the date of award, on such deposit, the petitioner can withdraw Rs.1,50,000/-, the balance is to be kept in F.D. for a period of two years.

2. The Appellants herein are no other than the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam and the Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

3. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2014 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:

(i) On 08.03.2013 evening, the petitioner started for his duty on his motor cycle and was proceeding towards Bhanugudi Centre, Dolphin Hotel Corner to attend his duty at Manohar Lodge. When he reached Dolphin Hotel turning Kokila Centre, he was moving cautiously. At that time one R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 785 proceeding from R.T.C. Complex to Visakhapatnam via Kokila Centre, came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn and dashed against the petitioner from the opposite direction. Then the petitioner fell on the road with his motor bike and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and later to Venkata Chalapathi Hospital, Kakinada. The petitioner was treated by Dr.K.Vishnumurthy, Plastic Surgeon. The Government Hospital doctors conducted three surgeries and rods were inserted and he spent about Rs.1,00,000/- in the Hospital and he was there for a period of two months as inpatient. He was permanently disabled and he lost his employment.

(ii) The Station House Officer, II Town Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2013 for the offence under Section 338 IPC. The petitioner is permanent resident of Madhuranagar, Kakinada. He was retired from Government Service. As on the date of accident, he was working as Supervisor in Manohar Lodge. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and controller of the Crime vehicle. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6. The respondent No.3 got filed counter denying the averments in the petition and resisting the claim of the petitioner. Contention of the respondent No.3 is that bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 785 belongs to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the said bus. On the date of accident, the bus was operating between Kakinada and Visakhapatnam (Non-Stop). It started from the R.T.C. complex and reached near Kokila Restaurant after crossing the Pallavelugu bus stop. The driver of the bus was driving the bus very slowly and cautiously. The petitioner, who was coming on his bike without observing the traffic, came opposite direction to the bus. On seeing the motor bike, the driver of the bus stopped it completely and the bus was in stationed position. The petitioner dashed the bus on the front side without having any control. There was no fault on the part of the driver. There was no accident as alleged. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the other allegations. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the accident occu