The court upheld the compensation awarded for injuries in a motor accident, affirming the claimant's disability assessment and dismissing the appeal due to lack of evidence from the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

V.SUJATHA, J.

The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 25.01.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.464 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,83,395/- (Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand three hundred and ninety five only) to the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.06.2014.

02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

On 02.06.2014 morning, the petitioner started from his house at BC Road, Gajuwaka in his auto bearing registration number AP 31 TB 5658, along with his house owner and her son to go to Desapatrunipalem. While the petitioner was driving from Steel Plant to Paravada and when he reached near Sector-VI at around 11:00 AM, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 6343 was taking right turn towards Sector-VI from the opposite direction. Observing the bus, the petitioner stopped his auto. However, the bus, driven by the 1^st respondent came at high speed without blowing the horn and hit the stationed auto of the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. Then the auto overturned and the other passengers in the auto escaped without injury. The petitioner sustained a fracture in his right leg and was immediately taken to Sri Krishna Orthopedic Hospital, China Gantyada for first aid. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Spoorthy Hospital, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. Based on the complaint, a case was registered at Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam, in Crime No.98 of 2014 under Section 338 of IPC and Sections 134(a), 134(b) and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver of the bus.

04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also remained ex parte after filing their common counter.

05. Respondent No.3-APSRTC, filed a counter, denying the allegations made in Paragraph 26(a) and also rejected the claims mentioned under Columns 25 Special Damages and 25 General Damages of the petition. They alleged that the petitioner has fabricated the case with an intention to claim compensation unlawfully. It is claimed that the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6343 was not involved in the alleged accident and that it was not driven rashly or negligently. The respondents contended that the accident was not genuine and the petitioner must prove with evidence the involvement of the insured vehicle. The respondents also questioned the genuineness of the petitioner’s hospitalization and treatment and demanded strict proof of the same. The respondents argued that the accident occurred due to the petitioner's own fault, such as overloading and unbalanced driving of the auto. The bus driver had already stopped the bus, blowing the horn frequently, but the petitioner had not followed Traffic rules and drove the auto in an unsafe and uncontrolled manner resulting in the accident. The bus driver operated the bus according to traffic rules as per Motor Vehicle Rules and he is having valid driving license on the date of the alleged accident. Further, the claim for interest at 12% was termed as excessive and contrary to the Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various reliance judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents claimed that the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the