IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on compensation, affirming that the claimant proved the driver's negligence and the assessed disability of 40%.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.

1. Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order, dated 18.01.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.253 of 2012 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), East Godavari, Rajahmundry (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal, while dealing with the claim of compensation sought by the claimant towards the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 05.07.2011, awarded a sum of Rs.3,66,200/- towards compensation.

2. The appellant/APSRTC, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed the present Appeal.

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

4. The case of the claimant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 04.07.2011 night petitioner and her mother Kota Varalakshmi boarded APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 4342 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') at Ramachandrapuram to go to Guntur for coolie work. At about 02:00 AM early hours of 05.07.2011 when the offending vehicle reached near sugar factory, opposite to NH-16 road at Surappagudem village, 1st respondent driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, at high speed and dashed Lorry bearing No.AP 5 TT 5859 on its rear side, which was stationed by the side of the road. As a result, petitioner, her mother and six others sustained grievous and fracture injuries. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1st respondent. A case in Crime No.124 of 2011 was registered against 1st respondent under Sections 338 and 337 IPC. Petitioner sustained grievous and fracture injuries viz., amputation of left leg above knee, face, right ear, right collar bone, right thigh fracture, right hand lower arm and injuries all over the body. There is 100% permanent disability due to the amputation of left leg. Her marriage prospects were deteriorated. She was shifted to GGH, Eluru and from there to GGH, Vijayawada. She was in patient for two months. Operations were done and POP was done. She spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she sustained permanent disability due to amputation of left leg above knee and she lost her earnings of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing tailoring work and coolie work due to the disability. 1st respondent being driver of the offending vehicle and 2nd respondent being employer of 1st respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. First respondent remained ex parte.

6. Second respondent/APSRTC got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioner has to prove the rash and negligent act in the manner as set out in the Petition and the medical expenditure incurred and that her entitlement towards the compensation. On 04.07.2011 the first respondent was driving the offending vehicle slowly. When the vehicle reached Bhimadolu, first respondent found a Lorry parked on the left side of the road but not on the road margin and when he tried to overtake the parked lorry, a vehicle came in their opposite direction. First respondent applied sudden brakes and tried to stop the bus but the bus hit the lorry. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. Accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.1 in driving APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 4342?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal,