THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1726 of 2015 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 02.06.2015, while the petitioner was proceeding in an APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02Z-0281 from Hyderabad towards Tadipatri and when the bus reached near Komireddypally Village limits, the driver of the said bus has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and thereby lost control over the vehicle, and thus the bus turned turtle, due to which the petitioner received grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Addakala and later on to Sun Shine Hospital and that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, occupation and income of petitioner. They further contended that the bus driver was going cautiously, but at that time two Volvo Buses over took the said vehicle and the second vehicle took a left cut to avoid collusion with opposite vehicle and on observing the same, the bus driver has applied sudden break and took the bus to his extreme left to prevent major accident and thus, the bus went into contact with the stones and turned turtle and that their driver was not negligent in causing the accident.

5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S. Suryanarayana Murthy, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-

02Z-0281, 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 ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8, X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,08,157/- @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the APSRTC.

8. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant counsel has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and that they have granted excess amounts and the learned Tribunal failed to observe that the accident occurred in 2015, while petitioner says that he has taken treatment in 2017 after being silent for two years. Thus, the case of the petitioner is false and that he incurred huge medical expenses and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, but has awarded exorbitant compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner was a passenger in the bus and in his claim petition itself, he has clearly mentioned that he is a poor person and when he was immediately shifted to the hospital, on coming to know about the estimated medical expenses, he could not afford to undergo treatment and thus, he was confined to bed at home and after pulling up his resources, he underwent treatment in the year 2017. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:-

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-02Z-

0281?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribu