The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of contributory negligence and compensation calculation guidelines under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.86 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, at Rajahmundry (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimants filed this appeal seeking reconsideration of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation.

2. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the untimely death of Duvvarapu Satyanarayana in a road accident that occurred on 29.10.2009. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children, and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana.

4. The claimant's case is that on 29.10.2009 at about 5.30 PM, the said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Sidantham village from Ravulapalem when he reached Mallayyadoddi Village on N.H.5 road riding a motorcycle on the road margin, one R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P. 28 Z 2992, driven by its driver, who is the 1st respondent herein, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed lost control of the bus and dashed the motorcycle from his behind. Consequently, the Said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana, who was on the motorcycle, fell; the bus dragged him and the motorcycle to a distance of 100 feet, thereby sustained grievous injuries, for which he was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, for treatment, where the doctors declared him as dead. The said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana would hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased.

5. The first respondent, the driver of the R.T.C. bus, filed a written statement denying material allegations made in the claim petition contending that he had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident; in any case, he is not responsible for paying compensation.

6. The 2nd respondent, the Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C., filed a written statement contending that there was no rashness or negligent Act on the part of the 1st respondent, the deceased in a rash and negligent manner driving the motorcycle, lost control and hit the rear portion of the bus. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. To substantiate their claim, during the trial, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 got examined, but no document was marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held the accident occurred due to 50% contributory negligence of each of the first respondents, the deceased, awarded a compensation amount of Rs.2,42,000/- towards 50% negligence attributed to the 1st respondent, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

9. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is the accident occurred due to the driver's negligence of the R.T.C. bus, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the back side, causing the deceased's death. The Tribunal erred in granting a meagre compensation amount of Rs.2,42,000/- though the claimants are claimed for total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal erroneously had taken into account the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month.

11. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the points for determination are,

I. Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased is correct, or must it be reconsidered?

II. Is