The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and assessment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

The present MACMA is directed by the appellant against the award, dated 16.08.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.934 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Tanuku (“Tribunal” for short), where under the Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act” for short) to award compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with regard to the injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 05.09.2007, awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with proportionate costs with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of deposit.

2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3) The case of the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.934 of 2009 according to the averments in the petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act r/w 455 of MV Rules is as follows:

The petitioner who is the injured is an employee at Dubai by the date of accident. She was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. Due to unfortunate accident, she suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 05.09.2007 the petitioner along with her daughter hired a car bearing No.AP-5-U-8383 to have a pilgrimage tour to Annavaram and Simhachalam temples and started journey by 4 a.m. When the car reached at Kathipudi flyover Bridge down, near parking place all of a sudden RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-355 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner from Kathipudi bus stand side and hit the car backside due to which the car turned turtle. The petitioner received injuries on backside of the neck, left side eye and both the parts swollen. There was bleeding from nose and mouth. The driver of the car also received injuries to the nose. Both were shifted to Government Hospital, Kathipudi by 108 Ambulance where they had first aid and later she was shifted to Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment. Later, the petitioner was shifted to Ratna Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr.K. Vijaya Kumar MS (Ortho) Rajahmundry, for better treatment. The petitioner spent more than Rs.50,000/- for treatment, medicines and surgery, etc. The petitioner was also treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but her health could not be restored to its normalcy. She was bedridden and became permanently disabled and unable to attend on her normal duties. The statement of the petitioner’s daughter was recorded by Annavaram Police. They registered a case in Crime No.116/2007 under Section 338 IPC on receiving intimation from Safe Emergency Hospital. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu, which is pending. The accident occurred is entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The first Respondent is the driver and second respondent is the owner, as such, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The petitioner is also entitled to interest at 12% per annum. Due to the accident and disability, the petitioner lost her job. Hence, this petition for compensation.

4) The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5) The second respondent/APSRTC got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioner has to prove that she worked as saleswomen at Dubai and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner also has to prove that she along with her daughter hired a car bearing No.AP-5-U-8383 on 05.09.2007 at 4 a.m., and reached to Kathipudi and that the RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-355 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car resulting in injuries and thereby the petitioner became permanently disabled. There is no rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent. Due to traffic jam at Kathipudi under the flyover bridge, the first respondent took diversion route towards Raja