IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.4039 of 2008 DATE:24.06.2010 Between: Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Krishnagiri Depot, Rep. By its Depot Manager, Krishnagiri, Tamilnadu. …… Appellant/respondent-1 And: A.Venkatrama Naidu and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.4039 of 2008 JUDGMENT : Tamilnadu Transport Corporation (T.T.C) questions award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st respondent/injured by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2002. It is a case of collision between T.T.C bus and jeep travelling in opposite direction near Kalroadpalle village on 30.09.1998 at about 2.10 P.M. The lower Tribunal found that T.T.C bus driver was at fault and was responsible for this accident. 2) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since it is a case of head-on collision between two vehicles running in opposite direction, the lower Tribunal should have found that there is contributory negligence on the part of the jeep driver also. Further, he contended that since the police filed Ex.A-2 charge sheet against jeep driver and did not file any charge sheet against the bus driver (R.W-1), the lower Tribunal should not have granted compensation as against T.T.C. No doubt, the police filing charge sheet against jeep driver is one relevant piece of evidence. But, it cannot conclude the issue. The Tribunal has to assess the issue on the basis of evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and R.W-1. According to the T.T.C, the bus was stopped on left side of road by R.W-1 after seeing the jeep coming in rash and negligent fashion in the opposite direction and the jeep dashed against the bus when it was in a stationed condition. The said stand was not spoken to by R.W-1 in his evidence. The lower Tribunal also considered evidence of P.W-1 to the effect that T.T.C bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep. P.W-2 was also one of the inmates of the jeep as driver. According to him, the bus came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed his jeep. It is not known what happened to the criminal case instituted by the police as per Ex.A-2. Therefore, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion basing on evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 that the bus driver was at fault and was responsible for this accident. Therefore, this Court agrees with the finding and further finds that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the jeep driver P.W-2. 3) In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- to the claimant who suffered hip fracture. Though the lower Tribunal awarded special damages under several heads, the lower Tribunal did not grant any general damages for the injury sustained by the claimant. Having regard to nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that award of compensation at Rs.20,000/- to the claimant by the lower Tribunal is not liable to be disturbed, particularly when there is no cross appeal by the claimant. Thus, there are no merits in this appeal. 4) Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 17, 2010 KSH