JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 02.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012, on the file of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vasakhapatnam, (“Tribunal” for short). Where under, the learned Chairman, in a motor vehicle accident claim of the respondent No. 1, awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,277/- as against the original claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012, filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short), in brief, is that: (i) On 27.04.2012 in the evening time, the petitioner was proceeding on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 31 UK 2374, at Parameswari Theater. Then respondent No. 1 drove the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner from behind and went away. Therefore, the petitioner was shifted to K.G. Hospital and later to Aditya Multi Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was treated for a period of one month as inpatient. Surgical plates were also inserted in his hip. The police registered a case against the respondent No. 1 in Crime No. 182 of 2012 of Kancharapalem police station under Section 338 IPC and investigated into. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being the driver and owners of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. (ii) The respondent No. 1 filed counter denying the case of the petitioner and by contending that he did not drive the APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner as alleged and that he is an experienced driver and he was having valid license and that the petition is liable to be dismissed. (iii) Respondents No. 2 and 3, APSRTC authorities filed counter contending its substance that the petitioner has to prove the allegations as averred in the petition with proper proof and that the he is not entitled to any compensation. 4. (iii) Respondents No. 2 and 3, APSRTC authorities filed counter contending its substance that the petitioner has to prove the allegations as averred in the petition with proper proof and that the he is not entitled to any compensation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 27.04.2012 at 04.30 p.m. at opposite Parameswari Theater, Kancharapalem main road, Visakhapatnam due to rash or negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501 by its driver/respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? (3) To what relief? 5. The petitioner, during the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A.06. The respondent No. 1 was examined as RW.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not let in any evidence. 6. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,277/-, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to deposit the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum and upon such deposit, the petitioner can withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and rest of the amount is to be kept in F.D. for a period of one (1) year. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid award, APSRTC filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 7. Now in deciding the M.A.C.M.A. the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the claimant before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6501 and that the petitioner received injuries in the accident? (2) Whether the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 8. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant in driving his motorbike and that there as a contributory negligence and to escape from hitting a woman, the claimant hit the rear portion of the APSRTC bus and contributed his role to the accident. Further the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, as such the award is liable to be interfered with. 9. Sri. P.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, would contend that the police duly investigated the case and after due investigation, filed the charge sheet showing the respondent in the M.V.O.P. as driver who drove APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and if really there was a contributory negligence, respondent No. 1 would have lodged a report before the police and contention of the appellant is not tenable and further the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not at all excessive and it is reasonable, as such the M.A.C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 10. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, in his chief examination, put forth the averments in the M.V.O.P. Through his examination, Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 denied that, to avoid from hitting a woman, he hit the bus. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 stepped into witness box as RW.1 and he did not dispute that the police after investigation, filed the charge sheet alleging rash and negligent act against him. These facts are not at all in dispute. 11. Having regard to the Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-copy of charge sheet and looking into the outcome of the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner in the claim petition, adduced proper evidence to prove the rash and negligent act against respondent No. 1. If really, the claimant drove the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and to avoid from hitting a woman, hit the APSRTC bus, the respondent would not have kept quite without lodging any report with the police. Having regard to the above contention of the appellants that the claimant contributed to the accident is not tenable. 12. There is no dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3, APSRTC are the owners of the offending vehicle. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation as seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, there is no dispute that the petitioner sustained fracture to right Illiac creast. Ex.A3-wound certificate reveals the same and it is grievous in nature. 1 to 3 in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation as seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, there is no dispute that the petitioner sustained fracture to right Illiac creast. Ex.A3-wound certificate reveals the same and it is grievous in nature. According to the evidence of PW.3, he operated PW.1 on 28.04.2012, to compound communited fracture of right Illiac creast. So, it is clear that PW.1 sustained a grievous injury and the surgical procedure was done on PW.1. Considering the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- by relying upon the decision in Mandava Suresh Kumar v. A.Padmanabha Raju1, because the injury was treated with a surgical procedure. Further towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In my considered view, the sum of Rs.50,000/- for fracture which was treated with surgery and the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nutrition and transportation charges cannot be said to be unreasonable. Coming to the medical expenditure, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,71,532/- under Ex.A6. The Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was paid in advance. Further with due care, deducted Rs.4,063/- and awarded Rs.104/- under a particular head as it was wrongly shown. So, the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.2,02,277/- was awarded under Ex.A6 after due scrutiny. There was no dispute about the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner under a bunch of medical bills under Ex.A6. 14. Having regard to the above, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that, the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation. In the considered view of this Court, the compensation of Rs.2,67,277/- as per award, dated 02.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 1425 of 2012, on the file of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vasakhapatnam, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 15. The compensation that was awarded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which is not liable to be interfered with. 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.