THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2060 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioners- claimants, against the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in O.P.No.466 of 1996, dated 17.01.2000. The present petitioners- claimants are the legal representatives of the original petitioner, who died after filing of the O.P. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 18.05.1995 at about 11.30 p.m. the petitioner was going in a city bus from Piduguralla to Macherla. The bus was driven in a negligent manner without maintaining proper distance from the vehicles coming in the opposite direction. As such, a lorry coming in the opposite direction dashed the bus in which the petitioner was traveling causing fracture to his right hand. A Case in Cr.No.64 of 1995 under Section 338 IPC was registered about the accident by Rentachintala police. The petitioner was treated at Government Hospital from 19.05.1995 to 22.06.1995 as inpatient. Thereafter also, he took treatment elsewhere. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. 4. The first respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the City Bus AEG 378 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 only the impleaded second petitioner was examined, who is the wife of the deceased (original petitioner) and Ex.A1 copy of FIR and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the O.P. holding that the original petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/-, however, that also cannot be paid as the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was not established. 7. By the time when the matter came up for hearing, the original petitioner died helpless. Legal representatives of the original petitioner could not adduce evidence with regard to the injuries suffered by the petitioner and they could not examine the medical officer. 8. Though there is no dispute about the accident and about the petitioner receiving injuries in the accident, the Court below particularly held that no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in which the deceased was traveling is proved. Not only the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in not cautioning the petitioner against keeping his hands outside the window of the bus in which he was traveling but also in not maintaining sufficient distance in between the vehicles coming in the opposite direction is sufficient to constitute negligence that would entitle the injured in such an accident for compensation. 9. As such, it has to be held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation as the deceased original petitioner suffered a serious fracture, I hold that the present appellants-petitioners shall be paid compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The entire amount shall be payable to second petitioner as and when deposited and she can distribute the same among other petitioners. 10. Accordingly, C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 24.11.2010 Rns