JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the respondent/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 04.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.148/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-III Addl.District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants for the death of P.Vrjinamma.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of P.Varjinamma, who is wife of 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 to 6, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.12.2012.

4. The facts show that on 06.12.2012 at about 08.00 a.m. when the deceased P.Varjinamma was crossing the road, near Kilesapuram Bus Stop, at that time, APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 7545 came from Vijayawada side proceeding towards Hyderabad, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased P.Varjinamma, due to that she died on the spot. The Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.599/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged 28 years and was attending labour work and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners are leading very miserable life, facing financial problems, lost love and affection and suffered untold mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the respondent in the petition, filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, and liability to pay compensation and contended that there is no rash and negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus, and the accident was occurred only due to the own negligence of deceased, while she was crossing the road without following traffic rules, and this respondent is not liable to pay compensation, and the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 7545, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of respondent/APSRTC, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that there is no rash and negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus, and the accident was occurred only due to the own negligence of deceased, while she was crossing the road without following traffic rules.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent’s driver.

11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of financial dependency; Rs.10,000/- towards mental a