The court held that moving a bus before passengers alight constitutes negligence and that functional disability can be validly assessed based on medical testimony even without a formal disability certificate.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/TSRTC challenging the award and decree dated 31.12.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.776 of 2011 by the Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Warangal(for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,72,991/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to respondent No.1 herein-claimant against the claim of Rs.3,45,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1 died and the respondent No.3 is brought on record as L.R of respondent No.1 vide orders dated 30.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019.

3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/TSRTC contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the driver of the RTC bus without there being any cogent and acceptable evidence. It is further contended that the claimant herself contributed to the accident by attempting to get down from the bus in a hurried manner without waiting for the bus to stop, and therefore, the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the disability at 50% in the absence of any disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board and further erred in awarding compensation under various heads without proper proof. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned award.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal, upon a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference by this Court.

6. As seen from the material placed on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1–FIR and Ex.A.2–charge sheet, it clearly establishes that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1311. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the driver of the bus moved the vehicle without ensuring that the passengers had safely alighted, which resulted in the claimant falling down from the footboard and sustaining injuries. The contents of the charge sheet also support the case of the claimant that the driver of the RTC bus was responsible for the accident. Though a contention is raised by the appellant that the claimant herself was negligent, no rebuttal evidence has been placed on record to probabilize the said plea. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence.

7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant pleaded that she was an agriculturist earning Rs.5,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the said income, the Tribunal rightly fixed her notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. With regard to the age of the claimant, on the basis of Exs.A.1 to A.3, the Tribunal has taken age of the claimant as 50 years and applied the appropriate multiplier of “13”. Insofar as the disability is concerned, it is true that no disability certificate was filed. However, the Tribunal, placing relian