JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 03.01.2012 in MVOP.No.1431 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’, the appellants who arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in MVOP.No.1431 of 2010 filed this appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation amount.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.1431 of 2010.

3. The claimants' case is that Appalanaidu (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP31AR1983 and his son, who is the 2nd petitioner and his brother Balakrishna were travelling on another motorcycle; when they reached Komalamma Panuku, the deceased was slowly and carefully going on his motorcycle on the left side of the road, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z4153 (hereinafter referred to as an offending vehicle), driven by its driver rashly and negligently at high speed, was coming towards him. The deceased stopped his motorcycle on the left side of the road after seeing the bus being driven rashly and negligently. The offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. He fell on the road along with the motorcycle, sustained a grievous head injury, and succumbed to the injury. A case was registered in Crime Number 262 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC by Pendurthi Police against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter, and the 3rd respondent adopted it. They denied the accident occurred in the manner it is pleaded in the petition. On 30.05.2010, the 1st respondent was driving the offending vehicle from Visakhapatnam to Paderu, a Ghat road. The offending vehicle reached Komallamma Temple; there was a corner. At that juncture, the motorcyclist came from the opposite direction at a down gradient at high speed. He saw the bus and immediately applied breaks in the said process motorcycle slipped. Both the driver and the pillion rider of the said motorcycle fell on the metal stone heap on the road, and the pillion rider sustained injuries. The offending vehicle was going in up gradient at a very low speed, and after seeing the motorcycle, the driver of the offending vehicle to the extreme left side of the road. So, the offending vehicle did not dash the motorcycle. During the enquiry conducted by the RTC authorities, it was revealed that it was a normal collision; there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the relevant issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined, and no documents were marked.

7. 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 vehicle's driver and granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondent and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to see that the Tribunal did not fix negligence on the motorcycle itself as he fell on the metal heap. The deceased's income cannot be fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month without any evidence, and Tribunal awarded excess compensation.

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

11. 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 vehicle’s driver.

and

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

POINT NO.1 :

12. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1. She was deposed about the manner of the accident; admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident. The claimants got examined 2nd