THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation -appellant/

respondent No.1 & 2 filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.2085 of 2011, dated 05.09.2013, wherein claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the respondents herein in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.01.2011.

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

3. The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant filed O.P.No.2085 of 2011 under Section 166 and 163-A of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in the bus accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus. It is contended that on 30.01.2011, the petitioner travelled by APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8196 to Kamalanagar and when the bus halted at her bus stop, she went to alight from the bus. Even as she was alighting from the bus with one foot on the road and the other still on the footboard of the bus, the driver of the bus, in a rash and negligent manner without waiting for her to move away from bus, drove it away. As a result, the petitioner thrown out of the bus and she fell down on the road and sustained multiple fracture injuries and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Raghavendra Hospital and later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet for better treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2011 under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the said PSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8196.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained crush injury to left hand with degloving (loss of skin and muscle), fracture of 5^th metacarpal, compound fracture of right radius, compound dislocation of left little finger with tendon injury, several deep lacerated wounds and abrasion. Due to the accident petitioner sustained huge loss and claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondents filed a counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the accident was only due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner herself but not because of RTC driver and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, Sayeeda Begum, due to her involvement in a motor vehicle accident involving the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8196 while it was in use in a public place?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9, on behalf of petitioner. None examined on behalf of respondents.

8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,62,717/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Corporation/appellant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not taking the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant