THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

11.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2746 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the 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 petitioners before the tribunal is that on 26.09.2016 at about 4:30 p.m., while the petitioner was going as a pillion rider on a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TS-07EY- 4561 and when they reached near Chest Hospital, S.R. Nagar, one RTC bus bearing No.TS-07Z-4004 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the two wheeler, due to which the petitioner and the rider of the vehicle fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda for treatment. The petitioner has incurred huge expenditure, thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the rider of the motor bike did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that there was negligence of bike rider in the occurrence of the accident. Thus, they denied their liability.

5. The respondent No.3 remained ex-parte.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

“1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries sustained by the petitioner Siyon Kumari @ K. Nagamani, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.TS-07Z-4004, 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 ?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,99,080/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, MACMA.No.381 of 2021 is filed by the claim petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation, while MACMA.No.663 of

2021 is filed by TSRTC.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

10. Learned counsel for the RTC has submitted that the owner and insurer of the two wheeler are necessary parties to the petition and that the petition is bad for their non-joinder. He further argued that but for the petitioner, there was no other independent witness examined in this case and that the driving license of the bike rider is not produced and that contributory negligence has to be attributed to the rider of the bike. He further argued that the petitioner has not filed any income proof, but the tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the crime record shows that the accident occurred due to the negligence of RTC driver and there is no evidence lead by the respondents to prove the contributory negligence of the bike rider. He further argued that the petitioner suffered amputation above the knee and that the petitioner being a ‘27’ year old lady has suffered a lot. She is a tailor by profession and that she has lost her future prospects totally. He further submitted that 80% disability is assessed by the District Medical Board, but she suffered 100% functional disability, as she cannot do any other work in the future. He further submitted that they have also filed the quotation of prosthesis i.e., artificial limb under Ex.A11, but the tribunal has failed to consider the same. He further