JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.06.2015 in MVOP.No.55 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’, the appellant who arrayed as 2nd Respondent in MVOP.No.55 of 2014 filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the award.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.55 of 2014.

3. The claimants filed a petition under section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of the death of Sayala Prasad (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2013.

4. The claimant's case is that on 18.05.2013 at about noon, while the deceased was selling guava fruits at the Toll Plaza, Kalaparru, at that time, one A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP37-Z-0061 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending bus'), being driven by its driver, i.e., 1st Respondent, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and even without blowing any horn or following the traffic rules, coming from Vijayawada and going towards Eluru, suddenly came and dashed against the deceased, who stood by the side of the road along with others who were attending their works, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe and multiple bleeding injuries all over the body and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru for treatment and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries.

5. The claimants' other case is that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and doing fruit selling business, thereby earning an amount of Rs.9,000/-per month.

6. The 1st Respondent, the driver of the offending bus, remained ex-parte.

7. The 2nd Respondent filed a written statement, denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased and the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to negligent standing of the deceased by the side of the road; the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. The compensation claimed is excessive.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the relevant issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary was adduced.

9. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e., 1st Respondent, and granted compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding abnormal compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-as against the claim of the claimants of Rs.8,00,000/-; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was standing by the side of the road and received injuries and the offending bus driver has got nothing to do with the incident; and ought to have taken into consideration of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also; The Tribunal committed a serious irregularity in considering the evidence of PW.2 who is not an eye witness. The Tribunal erred in calculating the income of the deceased, awarding Rs.1,00,000/-towards consortium, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection and awarding interest @ 7.5% p.a.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal.

13. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending bus driver or negligence of the deceased contributed to the accident?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasona