THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.863 of 2003 Date: 01-7-2010 Between The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur … Appellant/Petitioner and 1. M/s. Alloy Nitrides Limited, Hyderabad and another … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.863 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Appeal by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for brevity) challenging the order and decree, dated 15-11-2001, in M.V.O.P.No.119 of 1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding a sum of Rs.8,020=60 ps., as against the claim of Rs.1,87,520=90 ps. 4. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP16U-5784 and respondent No.2 is the insurer. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the bus bearing No.AP9Z-9603 belonging to the Corporation met with an accident when the lorry bearing No.AP16U-5784 belonging to respondent No.1 collided due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. In the said accident, the conductor of the bus died and the driver was injured along with a few other passengers. The Corporation paid some amount to the families of the conductor, driver and passengers. Since the bus belonging to the Corporation also got damaged and because of the said damage, the bus was kept idle, because of which there was some loss of earnings to the Corporation, a claim was made before the Tribunal by the Corporation. 6. It is not in dispute that the offending lorry was insured for third party damages for a sum of Rs.6,000/- only. Therefore, having kept that fact in mind, the Tribunal had awarded only that amount to be paid by the owner of the vehicle and the insurer and eventually allowed the compensation towards damages for a sum of Rs.8,020=60 ps. The Tribunal further directed that out of the said amount awarded over and above Rs.6,000/-, which is the liability of the insurer can be recovered from the owner of the lorry. The Tribunal further denied the claim of the Corporation with regard to certain amounts paid towards damages to the family of the deceased conductor, injured driver and other passengers. 7. Some amount was claimed but the Tribunal recorded the finding that the Corporation is not entitled to claim the said amount paid to its employees since it is not permissible under rules. In other words, the Corporation paid the said amount to its conductor, driver and some passengers on its own and the said liability cannot be fastened against the insurer. I find no irrationality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Coming to the other claims under the head of ‘special damages’ i.e., Rs.9,521=20 ps., towards cost of damages caused to the bus and Rs.17,385/- towards loss of earnings for keeping the bus idle for five days, respectively, upon calculation the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.8,020=60 ps., towards compensation for special damages while rejecting the other claims. 9. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, it is quite obvious that the Corporation is not entitled to claim the amounts as ‘special damages’, which include the compensation paid to its employees since a finding was recorded in the impugned order that the same is not permissible under rules. This view of the Tribunal was further strengthened with the fact that the family members of the conductor had already filed O.P.No.900 of 1996 against the insurance company and the lorry and the same was decreed for about Rs.2,27,000/-. Therefore, any amounts paid to the deceased conductor and the injured driver are deemed to have been paid towards ex gratia. Therefore, such payments made to the staff of the Corporation and other passengers, who were injured, were made on its own by the Corporation. 10. Further, it could be seen from the impugned order that the amounts claimed towards loss of earnings for keeping the bus idle for five days even though the bus was kept idle for 64 days, it appears that no evidence was adduced in this regard. The evidence of P.W.2, who was examined in this regard by the Corporation, was not convincing and cogent as noticed by the Tribunal. In the absence of any material evidence mere assertion is not sufficient. On the other hand, such averments ought to be substantiated, which is quite possible for the Corporation. 11. For the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. 13. However, it is for the Corporation to make an independent claim against the owner of the lorry for any damages said to have been caused to the bus belonging to the Corporation by the driver of the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 in accordance with law. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01st July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.863 of 2003 01st July, 2010. (Ak)