The court established that compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act should be assessed based on the preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof, and that enhancing compensation beyond the claim amount is permissible to ensure just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1. [i] APSRTC-The 2^nd respondent before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Srikakulam [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2012, feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 14.3.2017 passed therein imposing liability to pay compensation of Rs.2,63,050/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/-, filed the present appeal. The 1^st respondent herein, is the claimant and the 2^nd respondent herein is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6906 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’]. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

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

II. Case of the claimant in brief:

3. [i] On 26.02.2010 while the claimant was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 J 8506 from Srikakulam to Bejjipuram and was near Byrivanipeta village road junction, at about 17.30 hours, the offending vehicle driven by its driver/ the 1^st respondent, coming from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam side, dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling, causing multiple injuries including fracture of left leg to the claimant. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, from there he was shifted to Nikhitha Private Hospital, at Visakhapatnam, where he took treatment for one month as in-patient. [ii] He was working as Field Assistant, in NREGS [National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme] and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was also attending agricultural works. But due to injuries he became disabled and unable to attend field work. He was in bed rest for six (06) months, incurred huge expenditure for treatment. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

[iii] Further, the case of the claimant is that the accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and a case in Crime No.15 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 338 and 337 IPC in Srikakulam Traffic Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Since the 2^nd respondent/appellant, being owner of the offending vehicle and employer of the driver and the 1^st respondent being driver of the offending vehicle, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed.

4. 1^st respondent-driver of the bus remained ex parte.

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

5. [i] The 1^st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle is an expert driver. Claimant was driving the motor cycle even without driving licence and negligence of the claimant is cause for the accident. The allegations contra made by the claimant are false.

[ii] The claimant shall prove all the assertions made as to age, occupation, income and disability and loss of income etc..

[iii] The quantum of compensation claimed under various heads is exorbitant and in any event the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.02.2010 at about 5.40 p.m., near Byrivanipeta village junction, new bridge, Srikakulam? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP