Appellate courts will not interfere with a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's assessment of disability and compensation when it is based on consistent medical testimony and legitimate application of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in the absence of evidence contradicting the tribunal's findings.

JUDGMENT :

V.SUJATHA, J.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order.

02. M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2023 is filed by the claimant and M.A.C.M.A. No.421 of 2023 is filed by APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated 28.10.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1311 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,95,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.05.2016.

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

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

a) On 12.05.2016, at about 6.50 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, on the left side of road margin, near a petrol bunk on Etukuru Road, Guntur District, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0064, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained a fracture of the distal radius and ulna on the left side involving the wrist joint, damage to tendons and nervous system, and blood clotting in the left leg. Initially, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, and thereafter to Ramesh Cardiac and Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent inpatient treatment until 21.05.2016. A major surgery was performed involving insertion of implants and repair of damaged tendons, and he was advised follow-up treatment.

b) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was studying 8th class at Sri Pujitha Public School, Guntur. He incurred medical expenses of about Rs.1,75,000/- and, due to the injuries, suffered disability affecting his physical fitness. Accordingly, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle remained exparte.

06. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the petitioner’s own negligence while riding the bicycle. It was further contended that the bus was not involved in the accident, and the compensation claimed was excessive. The petitioner was put to strict proof of age, education, disability, and other claims.

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

“1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 12.05.2016 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle APSRTC bearing No.AP 07 Z 0064 its driver/2nd respondent and whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

08. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.1, who is the junior paternal uncle of the claimant was examined. P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, was also examined. To prove the medical expenditure, P.W.3, the Manager of Ramesh Hospital was examined. The claimant himself was examined as P.W.4. Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.X1/case sheet were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were marked.

09. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and partly allowed the claim petition as follows:

“1) Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,95,000/-;

2) Petitioner