HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 320 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 98 of 2005 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.10.2004 while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP7Q 7398 from Kankpadu to Devarapalli and when he reached near Prodduturu cross roads on Bandar Vijayawada road, RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 1216 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent being driver of the APSRTC bus and the second respondent being Managing Director of APSRTC are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. The Tribunal held that the second respondent-Corporation is responsible for payment of the compensation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the gravity of injuries received by the claimant, awarded Rs. 1,61,954/- as compensation against the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of RW-1 viz., driver of the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 1216 and it ought to have held that the claimant who is riding Motor Cycle bearing No. AP7Q 7398 was also equally responsible for the accident. He also submits that the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence of PW-1 in proper perspective and relied on Ex. A-1 FIR and Ex. A3 charge sheet, which is not a conclusive proof to hold that the driver of the bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and amount granted is very excessive and exorbitant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 24.10.2004 while the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP7Q 7398 from Kankpadu to Devarapalli and when he reached near Prodduturu cross roads on Bandar Vijayawada road, RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 1216 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted reasonable compensation but as far as the medical bills under Ex. A4, are concerned, the Tribunal granted Rs. 66,954/- which is very high. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the same is reduced to 56,954/- viz., Rs. 10,000/-, as the amount granted is excessive when compared to the original bills. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed reducing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,61,954/- to Rs. 1,51,954/- and the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA