IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.726 OF 2005 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... Appellant And Rathod Thukaram & 3 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.726 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.660 of 2000, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, dated 05.04.2004. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the injured claimant before the Tribunal was travelling in jeep bearing No.AP 25D 795 on 22.02.2000 and near Mavala forest check post in Adilabad District, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6748, driven in high speed, rashly and negligently, came opposite and dashed against the jeep. The jeep turned turtle and the claimant and others sustained grievous injuries. The claimant became disabled and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the A.P.S.R.T.C. as well as the bus driver and the owner and insurer of the jeep. 3. While the bus driver and the owner of the jeep remained ex parte before the Tribunal, in spite of its appearance before the Tribunal, the A.P.S.R.T.C. neither filed any written statement nor produced any evidence. 4. It was only the insurer of the jeep that contested the claim contending the jeep driver to have not contributed to the accident in any manner and in any view, the insurer of the jeep is not liable as the claimant was travelling in the jeep by paying hire charges in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. The Tribunal framed issues on the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to the compensation and during the enquiry, it examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-40. The Tribunal allowed I.A.No.988 of 2003 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the 4th respondent, by an order, dated 03.07.2003. None of the respondents produced any evidence before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that the happening of the accident is admitted and the first respondent, A.P.S.R.T.C., did not file any written statement or counter or produce any evidence. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the injured-P.W.1 about the accident taking place due to the fault of the bus driver only and further noted that the uncontroverted version of P.W.1 is also probablised by Ex.A-3-Remand Case Diary from which it is evident that the police arrested the bus driver also and produced him before the Magistrate opining both the drivers to be at fault notwithstanding the registration of Ex.A- 1-First Information Report only against the jeep driver who died, on the report of the bus driver himself. The Tribunal noted that it is not known against whom the police filed the charge sheet on completion of the investigation. On the evidence of P.W.1, it was proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal further noted that in view of the responsibility for the accident being with the bus driver, the 3rd and 4th respondents, are not liable and respondents 1 and 2 alone are liable to pay the compensation. Then the Tribunal noted the injuries sustained by P.W.1, the treatment he had undergone, the medical leave which was availed by him and other circumstances and granted Rs.20,000/- towards the fracture of both bones of the right forearm, Rs.15,000/- towards fracture of right radius near the wrist and Rs.1,000/- each towards two simple injuries. It also granted Rs.9,501.09 Ps. towards the amount covered by the medical bills Ex.A-15. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.7,506/- towards loss of salary for one month and Rs.5,000/- towards miscellaneous expenditure of transport, attendant charges etc., during the period of treatment. It granted a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the surgery undergone and the pain and suffering and on the total compensation of Rs.69,007.09 Ps., the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and also proportionate costs. 7. The A.P.S.R.T.C. is before this Court with this appeal contending that the bus driver alone could not have been held responsible for the accident when the police opined both the drivers to be responsible and contributory negligence ought to have made all the respondents jointly and severally liable for the compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded is also challenged as erroneous. 8. Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, learned standing counsel for the appellant, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the fixation of liability on respondents 1 and 2 alone is justified on the evidence and whether the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive? 10. The Tribunal, in concluding the bus driver alone to be responsible for the accident, was accepting the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1, who explained that the bus bound for Bodhan came in the opposite direction at high speed and dashed the jeep at the turning. P.W.1 positively denied the suggestions that the jeep went off the road and hit a tree while negotiating the turning and that the bus did not hit the jeep. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the claims of P.W.1 and the registration of Ex.A-1-First Information Report was against the deceased jeep driver only, but on the report of the bus driver himself, who could not have been expected to admit his responsibility for the accident. Ex.A-2-observation report of the scene of offence prepared by the Investigating Officer and Ex.A-3 remand case diary show that the very observation of the scene of offence and the investigation by the police found the allegations of the bus driver leading to the registration of Ex.A-1 to be not true and even if the police opined both the drivers to be at fault in Ex.A-3, the same stood sufficiently contradicted by the evidence on oath before the Tribunal by P.W.1 and in the absence of any contrary material, there was no reason to dismiss the findings of the Tribunal who also had the opportunity of observing P.W.1 and his demeanour while recording the evidence. Hence, the conclusion about the responsibility for the accident need not be disturbed. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, there can be no complaint against admitting the actual medical expenses proved by Ex.A-15-bill or the actual loss of salary of Rs.7,506/- proved by Exs.A-36 & A-37-salary certificate and leave sanction proceedings. The very nature of the injuries and the course of treatment proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 could make the grant of Rs.5,000/- towards inevitable miscellaneous expenses of transport, attendant charges, etc., very reasonable. The Tribunal awarded Rs.36,000/- towards the grievous and simple injuries suffered by the claimant in toto and the fractures suffered by the claimant, apart from simple injuries resulting in the claimant being treated between 23.02.2000 and 13.02.2001 for about one year either as inpatient or outpatient cannot be considered to have been ever sufficiently compensated by such sum. It was for the pain and suffering, the tortious treatment and compulsion to have a surgery that the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- and the total compensation of Rs.69,007.09 Ps. awarded as against the claim for Rs.1,50,000/- or the interest awarded at 9% per annum or the costs awarded at Rs.295/- proportionately cannot be in any manner interfered with. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.726 OF 2005 November 16, 2010. KL