The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Act should account for loss of dependency, future prospects, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses, and the interest rate should be considered based on the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC.

2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 08.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.11.2007 one Bhupati Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and another person were proceedings from Mutyalammapadu towards cement factory on a scooter bearing registration No16 N 9208; when they reached near Anjaneya Swamy Temple on G.S.Raju road around 5.40 PM, a bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z 9872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) belongs to APSRTC, came in opposite direction, hit the scooter; the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries in Government Hospital, Vijayawada; a case in Crime No.566 of 2007 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).

5. The deceased was working as lorry driver and also doing commission business in pulses and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.

6. The respondent No.3/APSRTC filed counter contending that on 09.11.2007 the 1st respondent stopped the bus at the bus top of cement factory to board the passengers and at that time the deceased with a pillion-rider came from wrong side in opposite direction in a drunken state and on suddenly found the bus in front of his scooter, applied sudden brakes and fell down from the scooter; the deceased himself drove the scooter in a rash and negligent manner; as there is no negligence on the part of driver of the bus, the respondent No.3 is also not vicariously liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners; the driver, owner and insurer of the scooter on which the deceased was travelling on the date of accident are also proper and necessary parties to the petition.

7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident dated 09.11.2007 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 Z 9872 by the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of scooter bearing No.AP16 N 9208?

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of scooter?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

5. To what relief?

8. During enquiry, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 are marked on behalf of the claimants and on behalf of the respondents the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1.

9. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it on issue Nos.1 and 2 held that the accident was occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, on issue No.3, held that claimant is entitled to sue all or any of the negligent person and it is no concerned of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnify as between them and he has right to recover full amount of damages from any one of the joint tort feasor.

10. Further, the learned Tribunal, on issue No.4, on failure to produce any evidence, consider the deceased as skilled worker and fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and basing on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 AC