IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.637 OF 2007 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Anakapalle and another. …APPELLANTS AND Kandregula Ramana and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. B.G. UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. A. RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by APSRTC, which figured as respondents 2 and 3 in O.P.No.147 of 2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum- X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. 2. The respondent/claimant approached the tribunal with a claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on 14.11.2004 when the claimant was alighting from the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 9693. It was alleged by the claimant that while he traveled in the said bus, on reaching Anakapalle, while all passengers including the claimant were alighting from the bus the driver of the bus suddenly started and drove the bus on account of which the claimant fell down and suffered serious injuries, which included a fracture injury to the right thigh. The claimant had taken treatment at different hospitals and has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Before the tribunal below, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and a co-passenger – eyewitness as P.W.2 and the Doctors, who treated him, as P.Ws.3 and 4 whereas the appellant examined the driver and conductor of the bus as R.Ws.1 and 2. On consideration of the said oral evidence and documentary evidence – Exs.A1 to A6 produced by the claimant and Exs.X1 to X5 marked by the Doctors i.e. P.Ws.3 and 4, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.88,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal is preferred. 4. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has not kept in mind nor discussed the evidence of the driver and conductor of the bus, who were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and who had spoken of the event that it is the claimant himself, who slipped and fell down and is claiming compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, states that even according to the claimant the bus had stopped at Anakapalle and all passengers alighted including the claimant. There was, therefore, no negligence and the liability imposed on the appellant is unjustified. 5. I have considered the said submissions in the light of the material available on record. It is to be noted that the claimant has not only examined himself as P.W.1 but also examined P.W.2 – co-passenger, who had traveled with him. The accident was witnessed by P.W.2, who has corroborated P.W.1. There were, admittedly, other passengers but the appellant has not examined any passenger and the only evidence is that of the driver and conductor as R.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, therefore, is not rebutted by R.Ws.1 and 2 and as such, the tribunal held issue No.1 against the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the tribunal on issue No.1. 6. Further to the extent of issue No.2, the assessment of compensation is based on evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are Doctors, who had treated the claimant as inpatient and have marked the medical certificates as well as the disability certificate. Admittedly, the claimant underwent surgery for right hip joint fracture, which required implanting the injured bone. The wound certificate as well as evidence of Doctors, therefore, clearly supports the quantum of compensation assessed by the tribunal below. I, therefore, find no material to interfere with the award of the tribunal below. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 20, 2010 DSK