A finding of negligence based on an FIR and charge sheet is sustainable if the appellant fails to provide rebuttal evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the other party.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2010 passed in O.P.No.2873 of 2008 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.73,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.10.2008, while the respondent-claimant was travelling in an auto-rickshaw, an RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2590, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto-rickshaw, resulting in grievous injuries to him. He filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.73,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-Corporation.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-Corporation contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the driver of the auto-rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling was also responsible for the collision. Learned Standing Counsel also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly Rs.70,000/- towards fracture injury and Rs.3,000/- towards simple injuries, is on the higher side and not supported by sufficient medical evidence and accordingly sought to set aside the impugned award.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of evidence, rightly held that the bus driver was solely negligent; that the compensation awarded was just and reasonable given the nature of the injuries; and as such, the impugned award does not warrant any interference.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has based its finding on negligence primarily on the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1 (F.I.R) and Ex.A-3 (charge sheet), wherein the police, after investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus. The appellants-Corporation did not examine the driver of the bus nor adduce any rebuttal evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the auto-rickshaw driver. In the absence of any contra evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver cannot be said to be erroneous.

6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the evidence of P.W.2 and the wound certificate (Ex.A-2) confirmed that the claimant sustained a fracture of the right femur and other simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- for the fractured injury and Rs.3,000/- for simple injuries. Considering the pain and suffering and the nature of the fracture requiring a student to undergo treatment, this Court finds the amount awarded by the Tribunal to be a just compensation as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. In the result, this appe