The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence must prove the negligence of the driver in a motor vehicle accident to determine liability and entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 27.03.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013, on the file of V-Additional District & Sessions Judge–cum–Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, (“Tribunal” for short) where under, the Tribunal in a Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim filed by the respondent herein awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the mother of the claimant in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 15.02.2013.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that :

(i) The claimant is the daughter of the deceased. On 15.02.2013 at Ramudupalem Village at 11.50 a.m., when the mother of the claimant tried to cross the road from north to south so as to catch RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127(herein after will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) the bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased due to which the left front bumper of the bus hit the deceased and left front wheel of the bus ran over her, causing her death on the spot.

(ii) The Station House Officer, Indukurpet, registered the case in Crime No.20/2013 against the driver of the offending RTC Bus under Section 304-A IPC. As the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the respondent has to held the liability to pay compensation.

4. The respondent got filed a counter, denying the case of the petitioner and resisting the claim of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has to prove the age of the deceased and the manner of the accident and further the income of the deceased and her contributions towards the family. The claimant has to prove that she is the legal heir of the deceased. The claimant being married woman is not entitled to seek any compensation. There was no negligence on the part of the bus driver bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial :

(1) Whether the accident that took place on 15.02.2013 at about 11.50 a.m. in Ramudupalem village was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3127?

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so to what amount?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.4 were marked. The respondent examined the Conductor of the bus as R.W.1.

7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with an interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and that the claimant is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded amount with accrued interest and that the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for 3 years and that the time for depositing is one month. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent i.e., APSRTC filed the present M.A.C.M.A.

8. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for determination are as follows :

(1) Whether the claimant before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3127?

(2) Whether the claimant proved her entitlement to claim the compensation on account of the death of deceased and whether the award dated 27.03.2015, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

9. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the claimant and in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the