JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, leaned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC/Respondent No.2

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Order and Decree dated 17.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The petition was filed under Section 166 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.10.2007.

5. The case of the claimant is that he is working as a driver in APSRTC; on 21.10.2007 at about 8.40 PM while he was driving RTC bus bearing registration No.AP11 Z 2570 coming from Rajahmundry towards Kakinada; he reached the place of accident i.e., Uppara colony of Dowleswaram; another RTC bus bearing registration No.AP28 Z 1766 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner; the said bus dashed the bus driven by the claimant; as a result, the claimant and other persons travelling in the bus sustained injuries; the claimant was shifted to the District Hospital, Rajahmundry and POP bandage was applied to his right leg and right hand; he was shifted to Raja Hospital, Rajahmundry for better management of the case; surgery was conducted on 26.10.2007 to the right leg; he was discharged on 18.11.2007; later, plastic surgery was conducted to the right leg; he joined in SAI Hospital at Rajahmundry on 10.04.2008 and discharged on 15.04.2008; the claimant spent nearly Rs.80,000/- for treatment; the claimant became disabled due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the claimant filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

6. The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the claimant; there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1, who driven the offending vehicle; the claim of the claimant is excessive.

7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bearing No.AP28 Z 1766, resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, four (04) witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4, respectively and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 documents. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was placed on record on behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

9. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. This finding was not challenged either by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle or by the respondent No.2/APSRTC.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence awarded several amounts, which are as under:

11. Therefore, the Tribunal, in all awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum towards just compensation.

12. The claimant filed the appeal challenging the above amount awarded by the learned Tribunal contending that it is not a just compensation.

13. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the evidence on record would establish