In motor accident claims, compensation must be determined based on the principle of just compensation, which can exceed the claimed amount based on established evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. One Sri Yaragorla Venkateswarlu, Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.991 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016 passed therein filed the present appeal contending that the compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- awarded against the claim made for Rs.8,00,000/- is not just and adequate.

2. Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT and herein A.P.S.R.T.C is the owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 451 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and Respondent No.2 is its driver.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the Respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

4. On the fateful day i.e. 23.07.2014 at about 05:10 P.M., while the claimant was going on TVS XL Moped from Dachepalli side in order to reach Rentachintala on Guntur-Macherla High Way, near Ambapuram Village, the offending vehicle driven by its driver / Respondent No.2 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant from his behind and dragged him for 50 feet distance. With the result, the petitioner sustained crush injury to his right upper limb, cut out above the elbow joint and fracture to his left lower limb above the knee joint. He was treated at Government Hospital, Gurazala. After giving first aid, he was shifted to Tulasi Multispecialty Hospital, Guntur. He has incurred huge expenditure for treatment, suffered permanent disability. The claimant was aged about "30" years; hale and healthy; attending agricultural operations; sheep business and he was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

5. Police registered a case vide Crime No.169 of 2014 in Gurazala Urban Police Station for the offences under Section 338 IPC and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

Case of the Respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C:

6. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, nature of injuries suffered, age, occupation and income, disability suffered, loss of income to the petitioner etc. relevant aspects. The negligence of the claimant in driving the TVS XL Moped cannot be ignored and the claimant himself is responsible for the accident. Quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

Case of Respondent No.2 / driver of the offending vehicle

7. Allegations as to negligence etc. are false. The Claimant shall prove all the allegations. The claimant was coming on wrong side in a drunken state and he was fell down in front of the bus. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Negligence of the claimant in riding the motor cycle / Moped is the sole cause for the accident and quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

8. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1) Whether the petitioner Y. Venkateswarlu sustained injuries in the accident on 03.07.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 451?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

9. Evidence before the learned MACT: