The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining liability and compensation for a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 02.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012, on the file of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vasakhapatnam, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Chairman, in a motor vehicle accident claim of the respondent No. 1, awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,277/- as against the original claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

2. 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.

3. The case of the claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012, filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short), in brief, is that:

(i) On 27.04.2012 in the evening time, the petitioner was proceeding on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 31 UK 2374, at Parameswari Theater. Then respondent No. 1 drove the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner from behind and went away. Therefore, the petitioner was shifted to K.G. Hospital and later to Aditya Multi Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was treated for a period of one month as inpatient. Surgical plates were also inserted in his hip. The police registered a case against the respondent No. 1 in Crime No. 182 of 2012 of Kancharapalem police station under Section 338 IPC and investigated into. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being the driver and owners of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(ii) The respondent No. 1 filed counter denying the case of the petitioner and by contending that he did not drive the APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner as alleged and that he is an experienced driver and he was having valid license and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) Respondents No. 2 and 3, APSRTC authorities filed counter contending its substance that the petitioner has to prove the allegations as averred in the petition with proper proof and that the he is not entitled to any compensation.

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

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 27.04.2012 at 04.30 p.m. at opposite Parameswari Theater, Kancharapalem main road, Visakhapatnam due to rash or negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501 by its driver/respondent No. 1?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

(3) To what relief?

5. The petitioner, during the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A.06. The respondent No. 1 was examined as RW.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not let in any evidence.

6. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,277/-, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to deposit the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum and upon such deposit, the petitioner can withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and rest of the amount is to be kept in F.D. for a period of one (1) year. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid award, APSRTC filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

7. Now in deciding the M.A.C.M.A. the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

(1) Whether the claimant before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501 and that the petitioner received injuries in the accident?

(2) Whether the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable?

Point Nos. 1 and 2:

8. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant in driving his motorbik