IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.4643 OF 2003 Date:14.12.2009 Between:- A.P.S.R.T.C., rep.by its General Manager, M.D. Office at RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And V.Jagannadham @ Jagannadha Rao .. Respondent/Petitioner JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the Award dated 23.08.2003 passed in O.P.No.1374 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad wherein the claim of respondent herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,35,581/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. Perused records. 3. The respondent filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.06.1999 at Neredmet Bus stop, Ranga Reddy district. According to him, on that day, he was standing at the bus stop along with his friend to go to his residence at A.S.Rao Nagar, and at that time, one R.T.C bus bearing No.A.A.Z.9164 halted at the bus stop, and behind it, another R.T.C. bus bearing No.A.P. 9Z 54 also halted and when he was about to board the said bus, its driver moved it suddenly at high speed with a view to over take the bus bearing No.A.A.Z.9164, as a result of which, the respondent fell down from the footboard and sustained grievous injuries including fracture of left shaft femur. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there, to a private hospital for treatment. A case in Crime No.111 of 1999 was registered against the driver of the bus bearing No.A.P.9Z 54 at Neredmet Police Station. The respondent further claimed that he was working as a House Keeping Supervisor in S.S.Associates, Secunderabad and drawing a salary of Rs.2,080/- per month and the injuries have resulted in permanent disability. 4. The appellant-Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1- driver was examined on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and Ex.X-1-Photo copy of license issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driven by its driver-R.W.1 and that the claimant was also partially responsible and there was a contributory negligence on his part, as he tried to board the bus by holding its rod while it was on the move. The Tribunal estimated the total compensation payable at Rs.1,80,775/- and apportioning the negligence at 75% and 25% on the part of the driver and the claimant respectively. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,581/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Corporation filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal having found that the claimant was also negligent in trying to board a running bus, however, erred in fixing his negligence only at 25% instead of apportioning the negligence equally to the driver and the claimant. The evidence on record would go to show that the driver of the bus-R.W.1, after reaching the bus stop, stopped the vehicle at the bus stop and after the passengers got into the bus, and on receiving the signal from the conductor to move the bus, he started the bus and thereafter, the claimant tried to board the bus by holding its rod, and unable to withstand the attempt to board a moving bus, fell down and sustained injuries. The Tribunal also observed that even according to the claimant-P.W.1, he got into the bus by holding its rod and because of the move, he fell down. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that the claimant has to blame himself for the injuries sustained by him, as he has taken the risk in trying to board a bus, which is already on the move. It is not a case where the claimant has fallen down from the bus after getting into the bus. It is a case where the claimant could not get a foothold on the foot board when he tried to board the bus by catching the rod while the bus was on the move, and therefore, unable to withstand the jerk, that is necessarily associated with the movement of the bus, he fell down from the foot board. The claimant would have easily avoided the accident, if only he had not made any attempt to board the bus, which was already on the move. The driver, who has started the bus only after receiving the necessary signal from the Conductor, could not be blamed for the fall of the claimant. However, the driver could have seen from the rear view mirror if any passenger was on the footboard of the bus or whether any passenger was hanging on to the rod at the foot board before starting the bus. The Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has also contributed to the accident by his own negligence. However, having regard to the nature and extent of the negligence on the part of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability equally between the driver and the claimant. It is only the negligent act on the part of the claimant in trying to board a running bus that has triggered the accident. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered that the ends of justice would be met by apportioning the liability equally between the driver and the claimant, as both of them can be considered to be equally responsible for the accident. The impugned Award is modified accordingly by holding that the claimant would be entitled for a compensation of half of the amount estimated i.e., half of Rs.1,80,775/-, which comes to Rs.90,387.50ps, rounded to Rs.90,388/-. The impugned Award is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2009 AMD