The Motor Vehicles Act favors victims in compensation claims, requiring courts to adopt the most beneficial view for claimants when uncertainties arise.

JUDGMENT :

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr.Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) appearing for the appellants and Sri P.Chandra Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (claimant), and perused the record.

2. The present MACMA is filed by the Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 22-08-2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.1945 of 2013 in allowing the claim of the claimant and awarding compensation of Rs.33,87,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% p.a.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the OP by the claimant before the learned Tribunal are that on 24-11-2012 at about 16-00 hours when the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-11R-5152 along with his wife Smt.C.Narasamma as pillion rider from Pahadishareef side towards Uppuguda, Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on the extreme left side of road, and when they reached Barkas CRPF Gate, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5427 came in opposite direction, the driver of the said bus drove the bus in high speed, in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, lost control over the bus and dashed the claimant’s motor cycle in opposite direction, on account of which, the claimant and his wife fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant and his wife were immediately shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the claimant was admitted as inpatient on 25-11-2012, and later claimant was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad for better treatment, he was again admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery on 26-11-2012 on spinal anesthesia, wound debridement and ORIF with istal femur LCP.

4. The claimant, at the time of incident, was working as Government employee in Water Works Department drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and used to contribute his entire earnings for maintenance of his family, thereby the claimant filed the OP claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

5. Per contra, the Corporation filed counter-affidavit in the OP denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

6. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? And if so, from whom, and

2. To what relief?

7. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant herein, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked, whereas on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, none were examined nor any documents were marked.

8. During examination, P.W.1 who is the claimant, stated that while he was proceeding on his motor cycle along with his wife Smt.C.Narasamma as pillion rider from Pahadishareef side towards Uppuguda, Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on extreme left side, the driver of the Corporation bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5427 came in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and dashed his motor cycle, on account of which, he sustained fracture injuries and underwent treatment in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad as Inpatient.

9. P.W.2 Dr.G.Subash Rao, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Doctor’s Multi Specialty Hospital, Dilsukhnagar stated that on examination of the claimant, he found that t