The court confirmed the Tribunal's findings of negligence by the bus driver and upheld the compensation awarded to the injured claimants, emphasizing the reasonable assessment of damages.

JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

These appeals have been filed by the Transport Corporation against the common judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed in MCOP.No.240 of 2016 and M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2016 respectively by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Gudiyatham, by which, the appellant Transport Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,22,932/- and Rs.13,69,600/- as compensation to the injured claimants respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners in the claim petitions is that on 03.03.2016 at about 14.00 hrs, both the petitioners viz., Dinakaran and Ramesh were travelling in a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-23-BU- 5423 as pillion rider and rider respectively, from Rajakkal to V.Kota. When they were nearing Bathrapalli Seventh Day Adventist Church, a APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-03-Z-0070 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioners' two wheeler. In the said accident, both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries and were admitted in Government Hospital, Pernambut. Subsequently, they were referred to Government Hospital, Vellore, where they further took treatment. According to the petitioners, the accident had occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. Due to the said accident, they are completely disabled. Before the accident, they were hale and healthy. The petitioner in MCOP.No.147/2016 was working as Tractor Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner in MCOP.No.240/2016 was doing agricultural work and was also working as Electrician in private sound service and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. After the accident, they were not able to do any work to maintain their family. Hence, they have filed the claim petitions claiming compensation.

4. The respondent filed a counter in both the petitions denying the manner of the accident. It was stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rider of the two wheeler alone, as the same was driven in uncontrollable speed and dashed against the bus. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. The owner and the insurance company of the two wheeler are necessary parties and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further, the claim made by the petitioners is excessive. The age, occupation and income of the petitioners are also denied by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent prayed to dismiss both the claim petitions.

5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they examined four witnesses-P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked 20 documents-Exs.P1 to P20. On the side of the respondent, three witnesses- RW1 to RW3 were examined and three documents-Exs.R1 to R3, were marked. The Tribunal, based on Ex.P1- First Information Report and the evidence of PW1, P.W3 and Ex.P5-final report, came to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said APSRTC Bus. The rider of the two wheeler did not possess valid driving licence. Therefore, contributory negligence of 10% was fixed on the rider of the motor cycle, i.e., petitioner in MCOP.No.240/2016. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.27,22,932/- for the petitioner in MCOP.No.240/2016 and Rs.13,69,600/- for the petitioner in MCOP.No.147/2016.

6. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the Tribunal, the Andhra Pradesh State Regional Transport Corporation filed CMA.No.1642/2022 against the award passed in MCOP.No.240/2016 and CMA.No.1643/2022 against the award passed in MCOP.No.147/2016, questioning the liability and quantum awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would argue that only the rider of the two wheeler was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Corporation bus, however learned trial Judge erroneously fixed the lia