The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (U/s.166) and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules in determining compensation for a road accident resulting in the death of a minor child.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 13.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.615/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition partly, awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of minor child Allada Naga Tanuj Kumar, aged 9 years, who is son of the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) r/w. Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of minor child Allada Naga Tanuj Kumar, aged 9 years, who died in a road accident occurred on 09.12.2013 while the deceased was on left side of road, the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1444 dashed against the child, caused his instantaneous death.

4. The facts show that on 09.12.2013 when the deceased Allada Naga Tanuj Kumar, aged 9 years on far left side of road at B.C.Colony of Jami Village and at that time APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1444 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules, coming from S.Kota village, dashed against the said child, caused his instantaneous death. The petitioners lost their only son and the future earnings of the deceased. Basing on the report of the 1st petitioner, the Station House Officer, Jami P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.175/2013 U/s.304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of the said APSRTC Bus.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the 3rd respondent in the petition, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying rash and negligent on the part of the 1st respondent/driver, and contended that the deceased suddenly got down from the auto and crossed the road, while running away in front of the bus and fell down, as a result, the said accident occurred. There was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and he is having valid driving licence. Hence, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus was remained exparte.

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

1. Whether the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28 Z 1444 in a rash and negligent manner and caused for the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, which respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of 3rd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W-1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of petition, to the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the APSRTC is that the driver of the APSRTC is not responsible for the accident. It was pleaded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver and caused the instantaneous death of Allada Naga Tanuj Kumar, boy aged 9 years. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the Tribunal on that issue.

11. The Tribunal