Compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established on the preponderance of probability, emphasizing the need for just compensation for injuries sustained due to negligent driving.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1.[i] The 2^nd respondent [APSRTC] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram [for short “MACT”], in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2015, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.6.2018 passed therein, imposing liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- with incidental relief as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded.

2. The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2^nd respondent herein is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 05 0044 [for short the ‘offending vehicle’].

3. 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:

4. [i] On 17.01.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle, from Kothapeta to Rajahmundry and when reached near Choppella locks, within the limits of Alamuru Police Station, the 1^st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the claimant was travelling, with the result the claimant suffered crush injury to his left leg, pillion rider also suffered injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry from there to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and left leg of the claimant was amputated above knee.

[ii] The claimant was aged ‘55’ years, doing fancy business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But due to the accident, he has suffered in multiplefolds including permanent disability due to amputation of leg.

Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The 1^st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte III. Case of the Respondent No.2/Appellant-APSRTC:

6. Negligence of the claimant is cause for the accident. The petitioner/claimant shall prove the negligence of the 1^st respondent. Age, occupation and income of the claimant, nature of the injuries suffered, treatment undergone, disability suffered and all other relevant aspects substantiating the claim made.

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

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0044 by the first respondent and caused the accident in question?

2) Whether the petitioner himself contributed to the accident in question?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount, if so, to what amount from whom?

4) To what relief?

IV. Evidence before the learned MACT:

8. Oral and Documentary evidence:-

V. Findings of the learned MACT:-

9. [i] Evidence of claimant as PW.1 coupled with the crime record including charge sheet, is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

[ii] The evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle is not of any use.

[iii] The claimant suffered crush injury on left leg and fracture of right ankle. Ex.A5-Disability Certificate is issued for pensionary benefits, but the disability of one limb, contributing for functioning of entire body and causing total loss of earning capacity, when seen, it can be found that the claimant is prevented and restricted from discharging his previous activities.

But he can carry out his activity in lesser sc