IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation for motor vehicle accidents should reflect the severity of injuries and the negligence of the responsible party.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. The Court made the following Judgment: Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 12.02.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 154 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with a claim of compensation made by the claimant for Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 19.09.2014, awarded a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- towards compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

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

3. The case of the claimant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 19.09.2014 at about 06:00 p.m. the petitioner and two others while returning to Perampet Village on a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BP 4335 reached near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Guravaigudem of Jangareddygudem Mandal at about 07:30 p.m. At that time, APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3988 being driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the traffic and without taking proper precautions dashed against the motorcycle from his behind. As a result the petitioner and others sustained severe injuries. He was shifted to Area Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem. Later, he was referred to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. It is only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent the accident was occurred. He underwent major operation to his right leg and his right leg was amputated up to the knee and he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure.

4. The first respondent is driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3988. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle in question having valid and subsisting vehicular documents. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner.

5. The SHO of Lakkavaram P.S. registered the accident as a case in Crime No. 85 of 2014 for the offences under sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the first respondent and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the first respondent.

6. First respondent/driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte.

7. Second respondent/APSRTC filed written statement denying the material averments in the petition and also its liability to pay compensation contending that the accident occurred was because of rash and negligent driving of rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BP 4335. At that time three persons were travelling on the motorcycle and the person who was driving the motorcycle was in a drunken state and tried to overtake the Bus in question and dashed against the Tractor coming on the opposite direction with a single light. It is due to hitting by the tractor the petitioner and other persons fell on the road. There is no involvement of the RTC Bus in the accident. By manipulating the Police a false case is registered against the first respondent who is no way connected with the accident. The entire negligence is on the part of rider of motorcycle, as such the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the O.P. The O.P. is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner has to prove the negligence on the part of the first respondent at the time of accident and also the age and income of the petitioner. The cause of action is baseless and incorrect, compensation claimed is highly excessive and the income and age of the petitioner is disputed.

8. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 19.09.2014 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus