The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be awarded for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and the court will consider the nature of injuries and loss of earning capacity in determining the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 31.12.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1111 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Tribunal in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle rules filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, awarded a sum of Rs.7,51,398/- as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1 in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 14.03.2012.

2. The appellant herein, is no other than respondent No. 2 in M.V.O.P. No. 1111 of 2012 i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

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/petitioner, in brief, is that:

(i) She is permanent resident of Rajivanagar, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. She is residing at Sai Nagar, Chodimella Gramapanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. She was aged about 25 years by the time of the accident. She was hale and healthy by the time of accident. She was doing agricultural coolie work and she was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.

(ii) On 14.03.2012 at about 11.30 p.m., at the in-gate of the RTC bus complex of Jangareddigudem, the petitioner and another woman were going into the bus stand on the extreme left side. One A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6431, coming from Tadepalligudem to Jangareddigudem, driven by respondent No. 1/driver in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed against the petitioner and another. The petitioner fell down on the road and the bus ran over the right ankle of the petitioner and she was dragged to some distance on the road. The petitioner sustained crush injury to right ankle up to the knee and other multiple bleeding injuries all over the body. Finally, her right leg up to knee from foot was amputated. Accident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. She was taken to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem after the accident, from there she was referred to Prasad Hospitals, Tadepalligudem as the injuries are severe in nature. She was treated as inpatient and she underwent major operation to her right leg and her right leg was amputated up to knee from the foot. She spent Rs.50,000/- for her medicines and treatment and extra-nourishment. The petitioner is permanently disabled and lost her total earning capacity. The accident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. The Station House officer, Jangareddigudem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 71 of 2012 for the offence under Section 338 IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had a valid driving license at the time of accident. He is working under respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6431. Hence, both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. It is the respondent No. 2, who contested the claim petition. Contention of the respondent No. 2 in brief is nothing but denying the averments in the petition. The further contention is that the bus entered into bus stand at in-gate slowly, cautiously and by blowing horn. At that time, two women with a boy tried to cross the in-gate road, in confusion mind and dashed each other and the petitioner fell down in a pit and received injuries. There was no collusion between the petitioner and the bus and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver/respondent No. 1. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7