HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum – Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act –cum- Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.996 of 2012, dated 14.07.2015, the appellant/respondent in O.P. filed the present Appeal seeking to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

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

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a resident of Thungapahad Village, Nalgonda District and on 29.09.2012, at about 3.30p.m., when the petitioner was going to Thungapahad Village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24C 4741 along with his friend Sri T.Guravaiah as a pillion rider in order to collect mechanical charges from one Ramanuja Reddy and when going in a moderate speed, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 24Z 0019 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s motor cycle near Earanna Kalva. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as well as simple injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Miryalguda and later admitted in Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad and underwent treatment from 20.09.2012 to 04.10.2012 and again got treated by Dr.Shankar Naik at Miryalguda, who fixed rods for fracture injuries. The petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, etc. Based on a complaint, Police, Tripuraram P.S., registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against driver of APSRTC Bus. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he was hale and healthy and was doing mechanical works and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the doctor advised him to take bed rest for one year and therefore, he sustained loss of nearly Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @

12% per annum.

4. The respondent/RTC filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, employment of the petitioner, narration of the accident, involvement of the petitioner in the accident, age, income, avocation and health condition of the petitioner at the time of accident. It also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 24C 4741 and that the amount awarded is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

5. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record and perusing the entire documents, had allowed the claim petition of the petitioner by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount which shall be deposited by the respondent within two months from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/RTC preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant –RTC as well as learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner. Perused the record.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC is that the Tribunal wrongly attributed negligence on part of the driver of RTC bus Bearing NO.AP 24Z 0019, erred in assessing the age and i