THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1082 of 2014 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 is that on 20.12.2013 at about 10:30 a.m., the petitioner boarded an RTC bus bearing No.AP-29- Z-1304 in order to go to Afzalgunj and later, the conductor informed the petitioner that the bus would not go to Afzalgunj and on hearing that, the petitioner requested the conductor to stop the bus for getting down and the conductor informed the same to the driver and the driver of the bus slowed down the bus and while the petitioner was trying to get down from the bus carefully, the driver of the bus has rash and negligently moved the bus at a high speed, lost control over the bus, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained bleeding injuries to his both legs. That immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and that he incurred huge expenses. He claims that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver, the RTC is liable to pay him a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the Managing Director/Depot Manager of APSRTC, filed counter affidavit denying the material averments with regard to the age and earnings of the deceased and they also denied the negligence on part of the bus driver. It is their contention that the injured has negligently got down the bus and thus sustained injuries.

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

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, M. Rajesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-1304, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, 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 PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,80,440/- Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

8. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the orders of the Tribunal have to be set aside as it has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.7,80,440/- towards compensation. He further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner was negligent while getting down the bus and that even in FIR under Ex.A1, it is mentioned that the injured himself has stated to the Police that he got down the bus in a hurried manner. He further argued that no independent eye witness was examined to prove the accident and therefore, the RTC is not at all liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that there is no proof of income filed by the petitioner and therefore, assessing the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month is not proper. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a just compensation is awarded by the Tribunal 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 bus driver ?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just an