THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.1574 OF 2003 DT.04.02.2011 Between: Chandra Sekhar ………….Appellant/petitioner Vs. Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. …….. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.1574 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 24.07.2001 in O.P.No.926 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/petitioner preferred this appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that on 10.03.2000 the appellant/petitioner was proceeding on a motor cycle along with his friend as a pillion rider towards Mehadiparnam; that when they reached Humayunnagar cross roads, a bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5645 belonging to the respondents came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, he along with his friend fell down and received grievous injuries; that both of them were shifted to Osmania General hospital and that the appellant/petitioner suffered fracture of left collar bone and hip bone and injuries on head. The Humayunnagar Police registered a case in Cr.No.69 of 2000 against the driver of the bus. Hence, the appellant/petitioner filed a claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The respondent/APSRTC filed its counter denying the material averments in the claim petition and also stating that the claim is excessive. 4. Basing on the pleadings of either side, the lower court framed the relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accident RTC bus driver, the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compensation and also as to the liability of the respondent- APSRTC to pay the same. 5. The claim petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got Exs.A-1 to A-9 marked on his behalf. The accident RTC bus driver was examined as RW-1. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent- APSRTC. 6. The lower Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and Ex.A-1 wound certificate, considered that the claimant who was a pillion rider at the time of the accident and his friend who was riding the motor cycle at that time, must be under alcoholic influence. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the friend of the petitioner who was handling the motor cycle at the relevant time, must be held to be at fault and he must have dashed the bus, and further observed that the investigation done by the Investigating Officer was mechanical and it did not give due credence. The lower Tribunal answered the first issue as to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle against the claim petitioner by attributing negligent handling of the motor cycle by his friend at the relevant time, while the claim petitioner himself was a pillion rider. By observing so, the lower Tribunal dismissed the claim petition with costs. 7. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on the fateful day and at the relevant time, he along with his friend was proceeding towards Mehidipatnam on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 28G 3711 and that when they reached Humayunnagar cross roads, RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5645 came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle, causing injuries to both of them; that they were hospitalized; that the appellant/claimant suffered fracture of left collar bone and hip bone and he also suffered head injuries. The appellant’s case is that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the RTC bus driver. It is his further case that neither he nor is friend was in a drunken condition and that their motor cycle hit the bus due to negligent handling of the motor cycle by his friend and that he is denied a suggestion to the contrary in his cross examination. It is his further case that the Medical Officer who examined him while he was treated in the hospital soon after the accident, observed in Ex.A-1 wound certificate issued by him that the appellant/claimant was under alcoholic influence. However, it is his contention that since the Medical Officer who issued Ex.A-1 wound certificate was not examined, the lower Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition. Therefore, it is contended that the lower Tribunal has erred in appreciating Ex.A-1 wound certificate. 8. It is the case of the appellant that the lower Tribunal ought to have entertained a doubt as to the veracity of the general examination of the patient since the word ‘gutka’ used in Ex.A.1 with a question mark. Moreover, it is pointed out that the lower Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of RW.1 at all since he happened to be the driver of the R.T.C. bus who was charge sheeted under Ex.A.2. The appellant took exception to the observation of the lower Tribunal in considering the evidence of RW.1 being corroborated by Ex.A.1 and narration of drunken story based on assumption and presumption and also in presuming the rider of the motor cycle to be at fault. It is his further case that the lower Tribunal was not justified to consider the investigation done by I.O. in Crime No.69/2000 to be mechanical and the investigation did not deserve due credence. That the lower Tribunal ought to have seen that RW.1 was charge sheeted under Section 338 IPC for his rash and negligent driving of the bus. Therefore, the lower Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. It is contended that the respondent corporation filed its counter and it did not raise any specific plea as to the negligent handling of the motor cycle except denying the claim petition averments, in general. It is contended in this context that the appellant happened to be a pillion rider at the time of the accident, therefore, it cannot be attributed with any negligence in handling the motor cycle. It is further contended that the lower Tribunal was also not justified in brushing aside Ex.A.2 charge sheet and that too when RW.1-RTC driver was charge sheeted thereunder. It is further contended that if the RTC driver was not at fault and if the fault was on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, RW.1 could have preferred Police complaint. He did not do so and the same fact also goes against him. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 9. Heard. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen that the doctor who issued Ex.A.1-wound certificate was not examined. There is no dispute that the appellant sustained multiple injuries in the accident and he was a pillion rider. Ex.A.2-charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus. If the accident had occurred due to the fault of the appellant, RW.1-driver of the bus could have preferred a complaint to the Police. Further, in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no specific plea about the rash and negligent riding of motor cycle by the appellant’s friend. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the lower Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and having regard to Ex.A.2 under which the driver of the RTC bus was charge sheeted for his negligent driving and thereby causing the accident, it is to be held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.65,000/-(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) only (i.e. Rs.50,000/- towards two fracture injures and head injury and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering), which is just and reasonable and the respondent-corporation is vicariously liable to pay the same to the appellant-claimant, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 11. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed setting aside the order dated 24.7.2002 in O.P.No.926 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 04.02-2011 Stp/Tjs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.1574 OF 2003 04-02-2011