(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to pleased to set aside Order and Decree dated 30.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1011 of 2016 on the file of Motor and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass such further or other orders as hides Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Chodavaram this Hon'ble court deems just and proper.

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 operation of order and decree dated 30.12.2019 in MVOP No 1011 of 2016 on the file of the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional district Judge FTC Chodavaram and pass)

1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1011 of 2016, on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Chodavaram by APSRTC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules made thereunder seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of grievous injuries received by him in the accident that was occurred on 30.04.2012 in which the bus bearing Registration No.AP27Z 0084 belonging to the respondent was involved.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.04.2012, he boarded the offending bus to go to Brahamamgari Matam, when the bus reached Nallagunta Village, the 1st respondent/driver drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at highspeed and thereby he lost control over the bus and dashed Turbo Lorry bearing Registration No.AP16TV 3254, which was parked on the left side of the road. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner and other passengers received injuries.

5. It was further case of the petitioner that he was taken to General Hospital, Giddaluru and after First Aid, he was shifted to Kala Hospital, Visakhapatnam. It is further case of the petitioner that he received grievous crash injuries to his left leg below knee, which resulted in compound comminuted fracture tibia and fibula with loss of muscles of left leg. It is further stated that a surgery was conducted to his left leg on 25.08.2012 in Kala Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He was readmitted in the said hospital as he was infected non-union fracture of left tibia for which he undergone surgery on 04.09.2012 for ilizarov ring fixation and later he was discharged on 11.09.2012.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that he was admitted in Lotus Hospital, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam on 05.06.2013 with a complaint of non-union fracture of left tibia and a surgery was conducted on 09.06.2013 to his left leg. It is further stated that he spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment and became permanently disabled and thereby he lost his earning capacity.

7. It is further stated that a case was registered in Crime No.33 of 2012 under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC, on the file of Station House Officer, Komarole Police Station, Prakasam District and later charge sheet was filed in the said Crime before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru. In view of the grievous injuries received by the petitioner he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

8. The 1st respondent/driver of the RTC bus remained ex-parte and respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner by contending that the complaint against the driver was registered only for the purpose of claiming compensation. It was further averred that the vehicle of the respondent was not at all involved in the accident as alleged. It was further stated that the claim is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to receive any compensation. Further, it is also averred that the 1st respondent was not the driver of the bus during the time of accident. With the above pleadings, the respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

9. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and examined Dr.K.S.R.S.Prasad as PW-2, who treated him in the hospital. He got marked Exs.A1 to A10 to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any evidence nor marked any documents on their behalf. Considering the pleadings, orally and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioner, the Tribunal by impugned order allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the bus belonging to APSRTC was not at all involved in the accident as alleged by the petitioners. In order to prove the same, the respondents not examined any witness. On the other hand, the petitioner categorically deposed that the offending bus was involved in the accident and in support of his contention he has exhibited Exs.A1, A2 and A4 in support of his case. On perusal of the above documentary evidence, it was clearly mentioned that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. As already noted supra, though it is contended that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, the respondents have miserably failed to prove the same. On the strength of the above oral and documentary evidence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the offending APSRTC bus was involved in the accident. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant is hereby rejected.

11. Coming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it had taken the salary of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month. Though the petitioner claimed that he was working as Technician in Stainless Steel Company by name Sarada Steel Works, Gurrampalem Village, Pendurthy Mandal and filed Ex.A5 Salary Certificate stating that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the petitioner did not examine the person, who issued the said salary certificate. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed any material to disprove the claim of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the respondents, their contention cannot be accepted. Further, on perusal of the record, especially Exs.A6 and A7, copies of disability certificates issued by the Medical Board, King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and Dr.K.S.R.S.Prasad, who treated him would show that the petitioner is suffering with 70% physical and functional disability of his left leg. Further, considering the case on either side by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”( 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)), the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed anything on record to disprove the claim of the petitioner.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order under challenge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

13. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and contend that this Court consistently awarding compensation of @ 7.5% and to grant the same rate of interest in the present case also. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the respondent counsel. Further, whenever a claim is made under beneficial legislation, just compensation has to be awarded to the claimant. In the circumstances, taking into consideration of the submission of the counsel for the respondent, the component of interest is enhanced from 7% to 7.5% and the same has to be paid to the claimant from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

                  There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.