THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.897 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 02.10.2017 at about 09:25 a.m., while the petitioner was going along with his brother on a two wheeler bearing registration No.AP- 09BL-3988, and when they reached Nizam Cafe, Chikkadpally, one RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-7106 came at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler from behind, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner himself and that there is no rash and negligence on part of the bus driver.

5. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 02.10.2017 occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner Surender Kumar due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3^rd respondent/driver of TSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-7106?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

3. To what relief? ”

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined as PW1 to PW4 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Vausdeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has granted a meagre amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as against his claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. He further argued that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence produced by him and that it failed to appreciate the evidence on proper prospective. He further argued that the Disability Certificate filed by him under Ex.A7 is not considered by the Tribunal and has also argued that the petitioner has filed IT Returns in proof of his earnings and thus the Tribunal has considered the earnings as Rs.25,000/- per month, but has failed to award the future prospects. He further submitted that the Tribunal has granted meagre amounts under various heads and thus prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on part of the petitioner and that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and that there was no negligence of the bus driver. He further contended that the Tribunal has granted a just compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement.

11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ?

3. To what relief ? 12. Point No.1:

a) The petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is his case that he used to undertake Interior Decoration with Wood Carvings in the Houses, Corporate Companies, Banks etc., by employing assistants and thus he used to ea