HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.322 of 2005 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed O.P.No.1995 of 2002 on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards damages caused to his unnumbered Bajaj Chetak Scooter with Chassis No.06 CBJA-19177 on 09.07.2002 at about 7.30 PM due to hit by APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z-980 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Managing Director and the Depot Manager of APSRTC respectively. They filed written statement denying the manner of accident and the alleged damages. By the judgment impugned, the Tribunal declined to grant compensation and dismissed the O.P. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal dismissed O.P.No.1995 of 2002, whereas it allowed O.P.No.1305 of 2002 filed with the regard to the very same accident holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. He contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2, who was arrayed as L.W.5-eyewitness in the charge sheet- Ex.A2. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the documents-Exs.A4 to A7. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC contended that as the appellant failed to establish the occurrence of accident and the alleged damages, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. 5. Based on the complaint given by one Dayakar Reddy, the Police, Keesara, registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2002 against the driver of APSRTC bus and Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and Ex.A2-charge sheet was also filed against the said driver. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI report, dated 12.07.2002, as per which, the Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected the bus at his office and he did not visit the accident spot. Ex.A4- the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama shows that the scooter was damaged in the accident. Ex.A5 is the report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor, dated 06.08.2002, estimating damages caused to the Scooter at Rs.12,500/-. To rebut those documents, the respondents have neither adduced any evidence nor marked any document. Further, the Tribunal did not mention with regard to Ex.A6-Bunch of Photorgraphs in the judgment impugned. It is to be noted that, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal in O.P.No.1305 of 2002 filed with regard to the very same accident held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant, to which he is entitled. 6. Insofar as damages caused to the scooter of the appellant are concerned, as per Ex.A4-secene of offence panchanama, the scooter was damaged in the accident and the damages were estimated by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor at Rs.12,500/- vide his report Ex.A5. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards damages. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.12,500/-to the appellant- claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The judgment impugned is set aside. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.02.2011 sj