JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 17.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.15/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,48,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioner/claimant, for the death of Teppala Narayanamma, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal.

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.1,50,000/- on account of the death of Teppala Narayanamma, who is the mother of the petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.05.2013.

4. The facts would show that on 27.05.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased Teppala Narayanamma returning to home from Jami Yellamma temple situated near her house, while she was walking on the left side of the road margin, the 1st respondent, who was the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 4663, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Sompeta Bus Stand towards Baruva, and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple fracture injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital, Sompeta and admitted there as in-patient. Due to lack of treatment in the said hospital, the deceased was referred to RIMS General Hospital, Sirakulam. The deceased died on the way to the said hospital, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Station House Officer, Sompeta P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.22/2013 and after investigation filed charge sheet. The petitioner performed the funeral ceremony and spent Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. The deceased T.Narayanamma was working as a labourer and getting Rs.6,000/- per month and used to give her entire earnings to the petitioner for her family maintenance. The deceased T.Narayanamma is aged 70 years at the time of death. Due to death of deceased, the petitioner suffered mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent filed written statement 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 offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the 1st respondent is having valid driving license and expert driver and took all steps to avoid the accident. The driver of the bus drove the said bus in a slowly, the deceased herself fell down on road, due to traffic and received injuries. Bus did not hit the deceased. The petitioner is not a dependent on the deceased. She is not entitled for any compensation. The 1st respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent.

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

1. Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/R-1 of RTC bus driver employee No.775836?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, D.W-1 was 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-5, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,48,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of