THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 143 of 2008 Judgment: This appeal is filed by the appellants-APSRTC challenging the order dated 17.09.2007 passed in O.P. No. 1786 of 2005 by the X Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. He claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. His case is that on 24.11.2004 at about 8.00 AM while he was walking from his house towards Sri Chaitanya College, S.R. Nagar side and when he reached near ESI Hospital, Erragadda, the offending bus bearing No. AP 11 X-2117 belonging to APSRTC being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against him. As a result of this accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to a hospital, in S.R. Nagar, and from there he was shifted to KIMS hospital and he was treated by PW.2. The police, S.R. Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.980 of 2004 against the driver of the bus. The respondents-APSRTC refused the claim of the claimant and denied the accident itself. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and Dr. R. Chandra Sekhar Naidu was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents-APSRTC and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and considering the medical bills awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,516/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents-APSRTC filed this appeal. The main contention of Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the APSRTC, is that the claimant was 19 years boy and that he was negligently crossing the road and that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the said aspect. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted some amount towards contributory negligence. His second submission is that the medical bills are exorbitant and the Tribunal ought not to have granted the total medical bills amount claimed by the claimant. As seen from the award, the claimant, who examined as PW.1, has categorically deposed that on the date of accident while he was going by walk from his house towards Sri Chaitanya College and when he reached near ESI Hospital, Erragadda, the accident occurred. Admittedly, the driver of the bus was not examined. Of course, except the claimant himself, no other witness was examined on behalf of the claimant. Any how, when the respondent-APSRTC had taken a specific plea that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, they ought to have examined the driver of the bus in support of their contention. Even if it is admitted that the claimant was crossing the road, that itself may not amount to contributory negligence unless there is some evidence to show that he had crossed the road negligently or all of a sudden. As far as the second point raised by the learned counsel for the APSRTC is concerned, I have perused the evidence of PW.2-Doctor. The evidence of PW.2 shows that PW.1 sustained head injury with right fronto temporal acute sub-dural Hamatoma, right temporal contusion. Fracture of right temporo parietal bone. PW.1 was kept on ventilator and he was discharged on 04.12.2004. Emergency operation was conducted to PW.1 i.e., right fronto temporo, parietal craniotomy and temporal contusion excirsion and duro plastic and bone flap replacement was done. PW.1 was again admitted in the hospital on 16.12.2004 and bone flap replacement was done and he was discharged on 19.12.2004. Again he was admitted on 24.03.2005 as bone flap exposed for scalp defect. Debridment local transposition of flap was done with plastic surgery and he was discharged on 30.03.2005. Thus, it is clear that PW.1 had undergone three major operations. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, I do not see any material to disbelieve the medical bills filed by the claimant and the Tribunal has rightly accepted the same. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 22.12.2010 Nsr