IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation for motor vehicle accidents should reflect the severity of injuries and loss of income, ensuring fair redress for victims.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 05.10.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 129 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 13.01.2005 at 12.00 noon, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

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 before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) On 13.01.2005, the petitioner had pain the ear and went to Sri Sitarama Nursing Home at Muramalla for treatment on her brother Koppada Pedda Shirvadam’s Hero Magestic. After completion of the treatment they were returning to their village, at about 12.00 noon. When they reached Bangaram Peta, Muramalla, respondent No. 1, who is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, came in opposite direction and dashed the Hero Magestic moped in high speed, as a result, the moped fell down on the ground. The right front wheel of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus ran over the left hand wrist of the petitioner, as a result, her wrist was removed. She also received injuries on head, left thigh and on right side stomach.

(ii) On receipt of hospital intimation, the I. Polavaram Police, registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2005, under Section 338 IPC.

(iii) The petitioner was treated as inpatient in the hospital for three (03) months. Operation was conducted over the fore-arm and the wrist was removed. A private treatment was also taken for speedy recovery of the injury. Petitioner/claimant spent huge amount for her treatment. Due to the head injury and the injury on stomach, her health condition was completely destroyed. She was completely bed ridden for one year. Now she is unable to walk without the assistance of others, as she is getting shivering. Due to the accident petitioner sustained serious loss and suffered so much mental agony. She became dependant on others.

(iv) Petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. She was a fish vendor, belongs to a fisherman community. She was aged 35 years and used to earn Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day by selling the fish in Yanam Market Yard and she is the bread winner and earning person in her family. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are employers of respondent No. 1, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4.........

(i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/A.P.S.R.T.C. got filed a counter, contending in substance that the offending vehicle belongs to respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 was the driver on the date of the accident. The bus was coming from Yanam to Kakinada. It reached Bangarammapeta Village. A person with a pillion rider on Hero Majestic motorcycle came suddenly in the middle of the road, as such, bus driver applied break and blow the horn. The fault is on the part of the petitioner, as such, the claim is to be dismissed. Petitioner has to prove the injuries sustained and medical expenditure. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:

(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 9313 by respondent No. 1, 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?

6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. The contesting respondents did not let in any evidence.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the