The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/appellants.

2. This appeal is directed by the appellants/APSRTC against order and decree dated 29.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.1069 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam.

3. The petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act 1988, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.02.2009 at about 2.00 PM involving RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009.

4. The case of the claimant is that he was travelling in an auto on 10.02.2009 at about 2.00 PM; the auto reached a place near Adarsh Nagar Junction; RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009 herein after referred as offending vehicle was coming from Tekkali towards Visakhapatnam; the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto; as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam; the petitioner suffered fracture of 1 and 2 ribs and deformity of left clavicle; on account of the injuries the claimant suffering from breathing problems and therefore suffered partial permanent disability 40%. The claimant would suffer with breathing problems during winter, he has to use mask throughout life and cannot do hardwork. The claimant was student, studying 10th class at the time of accident. Hence, he filed the claim petition.

5. The respondent/RTC filed counter contenting that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the auto and there was no negligence of the driver of the bus; compensation claimed by the petitioner is excess.

6. In the light of the above rival contentions, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trail:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1009 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of petitioner, the petitioner’s father was examined as PW-1, petitioner was examined as PW-4, the doctor who treated the petitioner and issued the disability certificate, were examined as PW-2 and 3 respectively. Exs.A1 to A4 and X1 to X4 were marked for the petitioner. No evidence neither oral nor documents were placed for the respondents.

8. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the bus, the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the compensation, and held that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,33,631/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit towards just compensation, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident.

9. The appellant/RTC contention is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctors, and wrongly fixed the age of the petitioner for assessing the negligence and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

10. In the light of above contention, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court?

2. To what relief?

11. POINT No.1:

The petitioner/claimant examined himself as PW-4 before the learned Tribunal. His evidence would establish that the accident was occurred due to rash driving of the APSRTC bus. Police registered a case, conducted investigation, and laid police report (Charge Sheet), and the driver of APSRTC was arrayed as accused in the police report. No contra evidence was placed by the appellant/APSRTC.

12. The driver of the APSRTC bus was not examined to speak about the manner, in which the accident was occurred. In that vi