JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.263 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, (for short ‘the tribunal’), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation Rs.5,66,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% per annum against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, the second respondent-APSRTC, represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, has preferred this appeal seeking set aside the order and decree passed by the tribunal.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, for compensation Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Katuri Satyanarayana in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2008 on by-pass road, opposite to Jalleru B.C. colony, Jangareddigudem. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children and the fifth claimant is the mother of Katuri Satyanarayana. He will be referred to as “the deceased”.

4. The claimants’ case is that on 11.08.2008, after admitting the deceased’s elder sister Chittiboina Dhanalakshmi in an eye hospital at Jangareddigudem, while the deceased and his friend Koyyala Naga Mohanarao were returning to their village Appalarajugudem on their motor cycles, and when the deceased reached Jalleru B.C. colony, at about 10.30 P.M., one APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 519 belongs to the second respondent, driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, and as a result the deceased sustained injuries over the vital parts, thereby he was taken to Sarita Hospital, Koyyalagudem, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at 2.30 A.M. on 12.08.2008. On a complaint, the police Jangareddigudem police station registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2008 under Section 304-A IPC against the first respondent.

5. The first respondent has remained ex-parte.

6. The second respondent, APSRTC, filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition, inter-alia contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while riding his motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 F 4911 was talking with his friend and so also not followed the traffic rules.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal has framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, the claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the third respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, while answering issues 1 and 2, with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent APSRTC, the tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent but not on account of the negligence of the deceased. The tribunal, while answering issue No.3, awarded compensation Rs.5,66,000/- with interest as referred to above.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/ second respondent contends that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while riding his motor cycle while talking with his friends and unable to control the vehicle, dashed the bus, and fell on the road and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly disproportionate and contrary to the provisions of law.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants supported the findings and observation of the tribunal and requested to dismiss the appeal.

11. Now the point for determination is,

I. Whether the tribunal is erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, the driver of the RTC bus driver.

II. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is just and re