The court established that a claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings and additional expenses incurred during hospitalization due to injuries sustained in an accident.

JUDGMENT:

1. An injured claimant prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation in MVOP.No.1603 of 2010. By an award dated 12.03.2012, learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Guntur granted a compensation of Rs.1,21,500/-. Impugning the same and seeking for enhancement of compensation, the injured preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The sole respondent before the claims tribunal as well as before this court is APSRTC.

2. Sri T.Sricharan, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned standing counsel for respondent/ APSRTC submitted arguments.

3. The claimant is a Goldsmith aged about 55 years and was stated to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 17.06.2010, he boarded APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 28 Z 533 belonging to Nellore Depot and the bus was plying from Nellore to Vemulawada. While the claimant and others were travelling in the bus, it was about 03.30 am the driver of the APSRTC bus by his rash or negligent driving dashed a lorry and as a result various persons travelling in the bus suffered injuries which include the claimant. He suffered injuries to his ribs, ear, eye, right leg and certain injuries all over the body. He was treated at MGM Hospital, Warangal and thereafter at Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. He was in-patient in two different hospitals. In the first instance, he was in hospital till 04.08.2010 and in the second instance in the second hospital, he was in-patient till 15.10.2010. He prayed before the claims tribunal, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. APSRTC contended that it was a case of contributory or composite negligence and pleaded that without making the owner, driver and insurer of the lorry, the claim could not be maintained. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP28Z 533?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

4. At the trial on behalf of the claimant, there was the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1. On behalf of the APSRTC, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

5. The subject matter accident was registered as a crime and FIR was issued as per Ex.A1 and the incident was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid as per Ex.A2. The learned claims tribunal recorded that the claim petitioner is a third party. He himself did not drive either of the vehicles and therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. It was found that both the vehicles had a head on collision. Even if it were to be considered that there was composite negligence, the third party claimant was held entitled to sue either of the joint tortfeasors or both of them. In this regard, learned claims tribunal referred to Sombathina Ramu V. T.Srinivasulu, [2009 ACJ 187] and Gajananda v. Virendra Singh, [2010 ACJ 145]. Since the law permitted the third party to seek compensation from all or any of the wrong doers, the learned claims tribunal held that not impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry, had no bearing. It considered the evidence and found that the evidence led by the claimant remained unimpeached and there was no evidence contrary to the facts deposed by the claimant and finally held that the driver of the offending APSRTC bus was guilty of rash or negligent driving which resulted in accident and resultant injuries to the claimant. In the present appeal, all these aspects remained undisputed.

6. With reference to the nature of th