PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 1731 of 2003 And Cross Objections Judgment This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No. 603 of 1996. Insurance Company is the appellant herein. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was traveling in APSRTC Bus No.AP-9Z-4533 from Armoor Towards Nizamabad on 16.12.1994. At about 2.00 PM, when the bus reached Munipally village sivar Chowrastha, lorry bearing No.APJ-3133 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and dashed the bus, on account of which the petitioner received right hand fracture and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Nizamabad from which he was shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad, where he under went surgery to his right hand and a steel rod was inserted. He took treatment in private hospital also by spending Rs.80,000-00 for treatment, for extra nourishment etc. On account of the accident, he is unable to move from the bed; unable to walk and work and thereby his future earnings are effected. Therefore he claimed compensation of Rs.1.50 Lakhs from Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., the owner of the lorry, its insurance company and the APSRTC officials, in whose bus he was traveling at the time of the accident. 3. The second respondent - insurance company filed its counter totally denying the accident with the lorry, apart from saying that the claim is exorbitant. 4. The fourth respondent APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and further contending that as the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the first and second respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial i) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. APJ-3133 by its driver or driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-9Z-4533? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioner PWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-20 were marked. Out of which Ex A-1 is the FIR; Ex A-2 and A-3 are the advance receipts; Ex A-4 to A-18 are the medical bills; Ex A-20 is the insurance policy. Ex C-1 is the Discharge ticket of NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. 7. The learned trial judge after consideration of the material available on record granted compensation of Rs.1.20 Lakhs, aggrieved by which the insurance company filed the present appeal. The first respondent-petitioner filed his cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation awarded. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lorry said to have been involved in the accident is not involved in the accident at all, the FIR was lodged at a belated stage; there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation between the Insurance company of the lorry and the APSRTC, as both the vehicles were involved in the accident and as the petitioner was also negligent, some portion of the compensation might have been deducted towards contributory negligence. 9. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the subject lorry is involved in the accident, at all? ii) Whether there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation between the vehicles involved in the accident? iii) Whether there ought to have been any reduction in payment of the compensation, on account of the contributory negligence of the petitioner? iv) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is appropriate? 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the accident has taken place on 16.12.1994; whereas the FIR was lodged on 12.4.1995. In case, really the accident has taken place the complaint should have been given immediately. Thus, giving complaint after four months, mentioning the lorry number creates any amount of doubt with regard to the involvement of the lorry bearing No.APJ-3133. As such I am not inclined to accept that the above lorry was involved in the accident. 11. PW-1 in his evidence never stated as to how he came to know about the lorry number and whey there was delay in giving the complaint. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept that the lorry bearing No.APJ-3133 was involved in the accident at all. It is not clear as to why the compensation was not apportioned between the appellant and APSRTC. In case, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation, obviously, the fourth respondent APSRTC would have been liable for payment of the compensation, to the extent liable, if the compensation was apportioned. 12. Now, there is no liability on APSRTC, as there is no apportionment between the appellant and APSRTC. In these circumstances the best course would be remit the matter to the trial court to decide the only question of liability of the APSRTC – Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 13. It is made clear that the trial court need not disturb the quantum of compensation awarded and the finding that the present appellant is not liable for payment of any compensation. 14. The trial court shall only decide as to whether APSRTC bus was involved in the accident and whether the APSRTC is liable to pay any portion of compensation. 15. In the result the appeal is allowed directing that: a) The matter is remitted to the trial court for deciding the liability of the APSRTC and to apportion the appropriate compensation liable to be paid by it; and b) To decide whether there shall be any deduction in compensation due to the contributory negligence of the first respondent-appellant. 16. In view my finding in paragraph-15 supra, the Cross objections filed by the first respondent-petitioner stands dismissed. 17. In the circumstances, it s directed that the parties shall bear their own costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010. *BVS