JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Questioning the adequacy of compensation granted in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”) the claimant before the learned MACT filed appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1180 of 2011.

2. Questioning the liability, just and adequate nature of compensation and claiming the same as excessive, respondents before the learned MACT filed the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1223 of 2012.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

4. One Ch. Udaya Bhaskar (for short “the Claimant”) filed M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2007 claiming a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident and the learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.6,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

Case of the claimant:

5. (i) On the fateful day i.e. on 12.07.2006 at about 07:00 hours, while the petitioner was travelling on his scooter to attend his duties near M.R.P.G. Boys Hostel. Nellimarla road, Vizianagaram, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.AP 11 Z 4660 (hereinafter referred to “the offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. In the said accident, claimant sustained fracture injuries on his left leg and left fore arm and also injuries on upper lips, face, left side ribs and his scooter was also damaged. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla for treatment. From there, he was shifted to Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He had incurred huge expenditure and suffered disability.

(ii) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver / Respondent No.1 under employment of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The offending vehicle belongs to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. A case in Crime No.136 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

(iii) The petitioner was aged about "49" years working as Social Teacher in A.P. Residential Girls Hostel, Nellimarla but now due to accident and disability, he is unable to attend daily routine. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

Case of the Respondents:

6. (i) The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of Respondent No.1, age, occupation and income of the petitioner.

(ii) Negligence of the petitioner is the cause for accident and allegations contra are false. The petitioner was unable to balance the scooter and fell down on his own. Therefore, for want of negligence on the part of Respondent No.1, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.

(iii) In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of first respondent?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum of amount he is entitled?

3) To what relief?

8. Evidence before the learned MACT:

Findings of the learned MACT:

9. (i) R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle admitted that charge sheet was filed by the Police against him.

(ii) The evidence of the injured witness PW.1 is coupled with crime record vide Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A4-charge sheet are sufficient to believe the negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iii) Since the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident and he is under the employment of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

(iv) The entitlement of petitioner for compensation under various heads