The negligence of a driver can warrant vicarious liability from the employer, and the burden of proof for accidents is based on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1.......

[i] One Vemula Sivaji [herein after referred as ‘the petitioner’] met with a road accident on 15.11.2010 at about 11.00 p.m. near Jangareddy Gudem village, within the limits of Jangareddy Gudem Police Station and suffered injuries.

[ii] Claim was made for Rs.25,00,000/- vide M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2012 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short “MACT”] for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident.

[ii] Learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.13,99,900/-under the impugned award and decree dated 17.09.2018.

[iii] Before the learned MACT, the 1^st respondent is the owner-cum-driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 4747 [hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle]. 2^nd respondent is the APSRTC/hirer. 3^rd respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured.

[iv] MACMA No.3460 of 2018 is filed by the claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the learned MACT.

[v] MACMA No.109 of 2020 and MACMA No. 1171 of 2019 are filed by the 2^nd respondent-APSRTC and 3^rd respondent-Insurance Company respectively, disputing the quantum of compensation awarded as excessive in nature and disowning the liability, in their respective appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

II. Case of the claimant/petitioner in brief, is that :

3.......

[i] The petitioner was hale and healthy aged ‘23’ years, working as cleaner-cum-helper in the bus, earning Rs.6000/- p.m..

[ii] On 15.11.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., while the petitioner was discharging his duties as cleaner for the offending vehicle/ hired bus. Front tire of the bus was lifted with jockey, while he was attending grease work using the grease gun, the driver of the offending vehicle viz., the 1^st respondent, negligently started the bus, on that the foot board fell on the petitioner waist, as a result, he suffered spinal card damage and facture of L1, Vertebra with altered marrow single intensity with loss of posterior element. The petitioner and others when raised cries, the offending vehicle was stopped, and the petitioner was shifted to ASRAM hospital, Eluru, where first-aid was given and the petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He was referred to STAR Hospital, where he was advised to be taken to Madras APPOLLO Hospital, for further treatment.

[iii] After giving treatment, on 17.11.2011 and 18.11.2010, the petitioner was shifted to APPOLLO Hospital, Chennai on 19.11.2010, where operation was conducted by Doctor N. Madan Mohan Reddy, for the fracture of L1, with parapalesia surgery for D11-L3 and the petitioner was discharged on 27.11.2010. Due to the accident, the movement of the petitioner is restricted, particularly due to spinal card fracture.

[iv] He is unable to walk, squat, sit, stand and climb etc. He has incurred expenditure at around Rs.8,00,000/- for the treatment at NIMS and STAR Hospitals, Hyderabad and APPOLLO Hospitals at Chennai. He became dependent on the family. Hence, he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation for survival. Since the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are vicariously and contractually liable to pay compensation.

4. The 1^st respondent-cum-driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC, in brief, is that:

5.......

[i] The petitioner shall prove the pleaded acciden