JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 in M.V.O.P. No. 676 of 2005 passed by learned Chairman, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore granting compensation of Rs.48,58,400/- against the claim of Rs.70,00,000/- for the death of one Sri Thota Ramesh Babu in APSRTC Bus accident, the respondent-APSRTC filed the instant appeal.

2. The matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The deceased was a Software Engineer working in Satyam Computer Services at Hyderabad. On 15.07.2005 at about 07:30 P.M. when the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a two wheeler driven by his colleague Racharla Siva Prasad on Venkatagiri Cross Road No. 5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, the offending APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP-10Z-1581 being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner went and dashed behind the two wheeler, due to which, the deceased who was the pillion rider fell down and the bus ran over him causing his instantaneous death. The two wheeler struck in between bus and its front car and thereby the rider sustained injuries. It is contended that the accident was occurred due to fault of bus driver and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, his family members lost fender. On these pleas the petitioners who are the wife, minor children and father of the deceased filed O.P. No. 676/2005 and claimed Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation against the Managing Director, APSRTC. Respondent filed counter and opposed the claim petition mainly contending that there was no fault of the bus driver. It is contended when the offending bus reached the accident spot, there was heavy rain and at that time, the rider of the Kinetic Honda came in front of the bus from an adjacent road in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the same, the driver of the bus applied sudden brakes and the rider of the motor cycle lost control over his vehicle and dashed the bus thereby the accident was occurred. It is contended that there was no fault of the driver and hence the respondent is not liable for the claim of the petitioners. It is further contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

(b) During trial, PW-1 to PW-3 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and exhibits A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of respondent, RW1 was examined.

(c) The Tribunal having regard to the eye witness account of PW-2, coupled with documentary evidence such as Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3-post-mortem certificate, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report and Ex.A5-Charge Sheet came to conclusion that the bus driver was responsible for the accident. In the process, the Tribunal did not agree with the evidence of RW1 who was the conductor of the bus. It also observed that admittedly RW1 was issuing tickets at the time of accident and hence, there was no possibility for him to observe the manner of occurrence of the accident. Then, considering the evidence of PW3 who is the officer in Satyam Computers and Ex.A6-salary certificate and Ex.A7-ID card issued by the employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.48,58,400/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. against the respondent as follows:

Hence, the appeal by the APSRTC.

3. Claimants also filed cross objections along with delay condonation petition which was allowed vide separate order and cross objections were admitted. In the cross objections, the claimants challenged the award on the ground that compensation was awarded for a paltry sum without having regard to the facts such as age, income and dependency of the claimants and also without reference to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 20