JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 12.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District Judge, Chittoor, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.12,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.09.2012.

4. The facts would show that the 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased N.Raghu @ Raghavulu. On 12.09.2012 at about 10.45 a.m. the deceased N.Raghu in order to attend his duty as a tiles slab worker at Bangarupalem, while he was proceeding towards Bangarupalem on extreme left side of road on his Bajaj Discovery Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 03 AV 0343 and reached near Tatappagaripalli at about 11.05 a.m., at that juncture, the driver of APSRTC 2 Depot bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 belonging to the respondent, and the driver of the said bus, drove the same in a high speed, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motor cycle, and as a result, the right leg below the knee of deceased was cut off, and also sustained other bodily injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chittoor through 108 ambulance for treatment, but he died at about 12.00 noon due to fatal injuries. A case in Cr.No.132/2012 was registered by Bangarupalem P.S. for the offence punishable U/s.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code against driver of the crime vehicle.

Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, and was working as tiles slab worker and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner. The 1st petitioner is also suffering from loss of consortium. The petitioners 2 to 4 are suffering from loss of parental care and guidance, and petitioner No.5 is suffering from loss of love and affection, and all the petitioners are suffering from loss of dependency.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of deceased. The claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 of the respondent?

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

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.12,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC in the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the dri