Compensation in motor accident claims is determined on preponderance of probabilities; negligent conduct of the driving party and just assessment of injuries is essential for just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introduction:-

1.[i] One E.Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana [herein after referred as ‘the claimant’] filed a petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [for short M.v. Act], before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Eluru [for short “MACT], claiming compensation of Rs. 11,60,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15.11.2008, contending that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1213 [for short the ‘offending vehicle], Learned MACT under the Decree and Order dated 07.02.2018 awarded a compensation of Rs.11,56,000/-.

[ii] Feeling aggrieved by the liability imposed and the quantum of compensation awarded, the APSRTC filed the present appeal.

2. The 1st respondent before the learned MACT is the driver and he is the 2nd respondent in this appeal. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

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 the fateful day i.e., on 15.11.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle, near Eluru Railway Station, Old Tollgate, Goods Shed road, Eluru, the offending vehicle driven by the1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite direction and dashed the claimant, whereby the claimant suffered severe head injury and multiple injuries ail over the body. The claimant was shifted to Asram Hospital, Eluru where he was treated as ‘in patient’ for (16)days from there he was referred to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment and he took treatment there till 12.12.2008, undergone major operations. He was treated by the Doctors, Dr.M.Giridhar Kumar, Dr.A.N. Prasad and Dr.G.V.Reddy. He has incurred an expenditure Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment tests, medicine, transportation and physiotherapy. He was advised to take bed rest for one year.

[ii] Further the claimant claimed that he is an advocate by profession, aged about 44 years, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, due to accident he became disabled. Hence, he is entitled for the compensation claimed.

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

5. [i] Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, nature of injuries suffered, age, occupation and income of the claimant, loss of income, etc., the negligence of the claimant is also the reason for the accident, he was not wearing helmet/cap in a rainy season and the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and the Insurance Company of the motor cycle.

[ii] Accident occurred on 15.11.2008, F.I.R. was registered on 17.11.2008 and there is suppression of material facts by the claimant.

[iii] The quantum of compensation claimed under various heads is exorbitant and in any event the 2"^' 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 injuries were caused due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1213, on 15.11.2008 at about 5 a.m., opposite to Eluru Railway Station Goods Shed Road, Eluru II Town Limits, West Godavari District by the driver/respondent No.1?

2) Does