Public transport drivers have a duty to ensure passenger safety while boarding or alighting; injuries sustained can impose liability unless contributory negligence is established.

JUDGMENT :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

This Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant assailing the Award, dt.17.12.2017, in MVOP.No.769 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by which the claim of the appellant seeking compensation was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

Brief facts of the case:

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 18.07.2015. On the fateful day, while the claimant was proceeding in a RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 7004 from Koti, Osmania Medical College, towards Abids, and on the bus reaching GPO at Abids, the claimant while alighting the bus fell down as the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which his left hand came under the bus tyre and was crushed and broken, and also the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, the claimant was shifted to Kamineni Hospital and admitted as an inpatient and got treatment, pursuant to which, the police, Abids Road P.S., Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.231 of 2015 against the driver of TSRTC and conducted investigation.

4. The claimant contended that as on the date of incident, he was aged about 36 years and working as Home Guard on contract basis and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and that on account of grievous and fracture injuries sustained by him, he was confined to bed rest and could not perform his duties and lost his employment. It is further contended that the respondents being the State Road Transport Corporation were jointly responsible for the acts of its driver in causing the accident, and are liable to compensate the claimant for the injuries sustained by him.

5. The respondents filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the claimant was himself responsible for the injuries sustained by him, as he got down the moving bus, as such stated that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S.Dakya, due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bearing registration No.AP11 Z 7004, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?”

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 to PW4, and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

8. The Tribunal after elaborate hearing and enquiry dismissed the claim of the claimant, holding that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the RTC Bus and on the other hand held that the claimant himself was at fault for getting down from moving bus and dismissed the claim petition.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial welfare legislation and summary in nature, the Tribunal ought not to have applied strict principles of evidence and proof, and contended that the Tribunal under erroneous views dismissed the MVOP without proper appreciation of factual matrix in right perspective.

10. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel f