(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toPresent this memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal before this honble court being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.11.2018 in M.V.O.P No 10/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims tribunal - CUm-V Additional district Judge, rayachoty

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

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)

1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 02.11.2018 passed in MVOP No.10 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty by the appellant/APSRTC.

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

3. The petitioner filed the above MVOP under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 06.01.2016 near Medimakulagunta Cross, Kaddireddipalli Mandal in which the offending vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent bearing Registration No.AP28Z 5932 was involved.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on 06.01.2016 at about 04:00 pm, he along with his co-brother was proceeding to Pandillapalli Village on Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP04AU 7871, when they reach Medimakulagunta Cross, the offending bus driven by the 1st respondent driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e., (i) Injury over the right temporal area joint above the right ear; (ii) Injury over the left cheek; (iii) Injury over the right fore- arm joint below the right elbow and (iv) Injury over the both knees. Fracture mandible right side angle, fracture mandible left side angle, fracture zygomatic arch on right side and fracture zygomatic area on left side. In view of the injuries sustained by him, the petitioner was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and a surgery was also conducted on the same day and later he was discharged on 09.01.2016.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that due to the injuries received by him, he became permanently disabled. A case in Crime No.1 of 2016 was registered under Sections 337, 338 of IPC, on the file of Lakkireddipalli Police Station against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in the accident against the respondents.

6. The 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/appellant resisted claim by filing counter affidavit and denied the contents of the claim petition in toto. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was further stated that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the petitioner failed to implead the insurer of motorcycle belonging to him to the petition. It was further stated that the claim was excessive. With the above pleadings, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, by impugned order partly allowed the claim of the petitioner by awarding an amount of Rs.2,56,800/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC.

8. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Shalini representing Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

9. Perused the record.

10. The counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. In order to prove the contention of the appellant, neither adduced oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. Per contra, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1, who categorically deposed that the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Though, PW-1 was cross examined, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Apart from the same, the claimant also filed copies of FIR in Crime No.1/2016, on the file of Lakkireddipalli Police Station and copy of charge sheet in the said crime, which were marked as Ex.A1 and A4 respectively. On perusal of the above documentary evidence put forth by the claimant, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. As already noted supra, the respondents failed to prove the evidence of the petitioner. In the absence of any contra evidence, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected. From the above evidence, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver.

11. Coming to the aspect of non-joinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer of the motorcycle is concerned, on perusal of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, it is succinctly clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/appellant, non-joinder of the insurer of the motorcycle is not fatal to the case and therefore, the said contention of the appellant is also rejected.

12. Further, to prove that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, he has filed Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A4 discharge summary issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, Ex.A5 X-ray report, Ex.A6-Disability Certificate issued by PW-2, the Doctor who treated the petitioner.

13. On perusal of the above documentary evidence, it is evident that the petitioner has received the following injuries:-

                  (i) A laceration is about 5 x 0.5 x bone deep present on the right temporal area just above the right ear, fresh wound;

                  (ii) An abrasion is about 2 x 1 cm present on the left cheek, fresh wound.

                  (iii) An abrasion is about 2 x 1 cm present on the right fore-arm, just below the right elbow, fresh would and;

                  (iv) Multiple abrasion present on the both knees.

14. In order to prove the same, the petitioner examined PW-2, the doctor, who treated him in support of his claim. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, he categorically deposed that the petitioner cannot attend the works as he was doing earlier and he has also issued ‘disability certificate’ stating that the disability is 30% and the same is marked as Ex.A6. Further, the petitioner also filed discharge summary and X-ray reports issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa in Exs.A4 and A5 respectively to prove his claim.

15. On the other hand, the respondents have not placed anything on record to rebut the same. In the absence of any contra evidence, the contention of the appellant that the compensation is excessive cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected. Further, on perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident while granting compensation of an amount of Rs.2,56,800/- the Tribunal had considered all the aspects to see that just compensation is paid to the petitioner.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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