(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 17.02.2020 passed in MVOP No. 26 of 2018 On the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP. No. 26 of 2018 dated. 17.02.2020 On the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 20-1-2021 granted in I.A No. 1 of 2021 in MACMA No. 23 of 2021, on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass)

1. The present appeal is filed by APSRTC questioning the order dt.17.02.2020 in MVOP No.26 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

2. The 1st respondent filed petition under Sections 166 & 166(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 23.11.2016, in which the offending RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP28Z 4282 was involved.

3. It is the case of the 1st respondent that on 23.11.2016, while he was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP03BR 4936, when he reached Settuipalli cross road of Sambepalli Mandal, the offending bus came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the 1st respondent. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the 1st respondent was admitted in Government Hospital, Rayachoty and later he was shifted to SVRR General Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment where he underwent surgery to his left fore arm.

4. It is further case of the 1st respondent that he has taken follow-up treatment as outpatient. It is further case of the 1st respondent that he has incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical and hospital charges, Rs.15,000/- towards diet and nourishment and Rs.15,000/- for attendant and transportation charges. It is further stated that a case in Crime No.146 of 2016 was registered under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. In view of the injuries received by him, he filed the above petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident was occurred on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent/claimant. It was further contended that the petitioner did not add the proper and necessary party i.e., Insurance company of the motorcycle to the claim petition and in view of the same, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the appellant/2nd respondent stating that the accident was occurred on account of negligence of the claimant and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further stated that the claimant had no valid driving license at the time of accident. It was further contended that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., insurance company of the motorcycle.

6. In order to prove the case of the claimant, he was examined as PW-1 and Dr.J.Nagesh was examined as PW-2, through him Ex.A5 was marked. The claimant got marked Ex.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC.

7. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, there is no appearance for Respondent No.2.

8. Perused the record.

9. The counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant. In support of his contention, he relied on averments made in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal. Except relying on the said averments, the appellant has not placed anything on record to substantiate the same. On the contrary, the claimant/1st respondent was examined as PW-1, who categorically deposed that the accident was occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the offending bus. Apart from the same, the claimant also got marked Exs.A1 to A2 i.e., copies FIR and charge sheet in order to prove his case.

10. On perusal of Exs.A1 & A2, show that the accident was occurred in view of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As already noted supra, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence. In the absence of the same, the contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected.

11. Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is pertinent to note that, as can be seen from the record that, the claimant sustained injuries viz., (i) Laceration 3 x 2 x 1 cm roof of nose (ii) Laceration 3 x 1 x 1 cm left ear (iii) Contusion over the head region and (iv) Fracture to left fore arm and injury to hip.

12. Further, he was initially admitted at Government Hospital, Rayachoty and later he was shifted at SVRR General Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. It is also not in dispute that the claimant underwant surgery to his left fore arm and the implants were inserted during the said surgery, in which he has incurred amount and the same is evident on perusal of Exs.A3 to A5.

13. As already noted supra, the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence put forth by the claimant, it is proved that the petitioner sustained injuries on account of the accident and he has spent considerable amount of money towards the treatment. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal after taking into consideration of the case on hand, awarded just compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner. Though, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is excessive, as already noted supra the appellant/RTC miserably failed to disprove the same. In such circumstances, the order under challenge does not require any interference by this Court.

14. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.