JUDGMENT :

Assailing the order and decree dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional District Judge - FTCD, Khammam, (Tribunal), in M.A.T.O.P.No.1982 of 2009, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 5.11.2003 at about 02.30 hours(night), while he was returning to house from Railway Station on his motor cycle, in the meantime, the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 5V 3575 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, coming from Mayuri Centre over bridge side, and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result, he fell down on the road, and sustained grievous head injuries. On a report, the P.S. Traffic Khammam, registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2008 under Section 338 IPC.

3. That immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government hospital, Khamma, and later he was admitted in S.C. Company Limited, R.C., Kothagudem, and he spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

4. His further case is that he is a business man, and used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and due to head injury, he is unable to move from bed, and he is suffering from severe pain, and he is also unable to attend to his normal duties, and thereby lost his earnings. Respondents 1 to 3, being owner, insurer and hirer of the bus involved in the accident, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. With these averments, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

6. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the bus, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer, filed counter affidavit, and denying the manner of accident as pleaded by the claimant, and also the injuries sustained by him, his avocation and income and, stating the compensation claimed is exorbitant, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. The 3rd respondent - Corporation filed counter affidavit and while denying the averments made in the claim petition, stated that it is only the hirer of the bus, and as the 1st respondent is the owner, and the 2nd respondent is the insurer, they are liable to pay the compensation, and sought to dismiss the claim petition against this respondent.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle APSRTC Bus AP 5 V 3575 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. In support of the case of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 18 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, except marking the policy of the crime vehicle as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced.

10. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant, who is the injured died, and vide order dated 16.8.2011 in I.A.No.686 of 2011, his legal representatives were impleaded as claimants 2 to 5.

11. The Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.1, who is the injured, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3, and as no rebuttal evidence was led by the 2nd respondent - insurance company, recorded finding of fact that on 5.11.2008 while the claimant was coming on his motor cycle from Mayuri Centre over bridge, the driver of the bus of the APSRTC bearing No. AP 5V 3575 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, and as a result, the claimant sustained injuries.

12. Further, considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the claimant, and P.W.3, the doctor, who treated him, coupled with medical evidence, awarded following amounts:

1. Hospital bills Rs. 90,000-00

2. Medicines Rs. 86,000-00

3. Attendant charges Rs. 5,000-00

4. Loss of earnings during the course of treatment Rs. 24,000-00

5. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000-00

Total Rs.2,15,000-00

13. Thus, the Tribunal granted the above stat