IMPORTANT POINT
The acquittal of a driver in a criminal case does not affect liability in civil motor accident claims, which are determined by the preponderance of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2013 dated 03.10.2016.

2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2017 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

4. M.A.C.M.A.No.2399 of 2017 is preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5847 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are husband and daughters of one Nimmakayla @ Kasimkota Chinna Narasamma (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The respondent No.4 is driver of the said crime bus.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 22.03.2023, while the deceased was proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 07 X 9787 from Pedakakani to Guntur on the left side of the road, at about 08.00 p.m., when the auto reached opposite BSNL Office, Near Postal Colony, Pedakakani, the 1st respondent driver of the crime bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the auto on its back side, resulted, the deceased and two others sustained injuries. When the deceased was shifted to hospital, declared her as brought dead.

ii). The deceased was aged about 46 years by the time of incident, working as Lab Assistant in J.M.J College, Tenali and earned Rs.16,000/- per month. Being legal representatives and dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus.

7. The driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus and it is only due to negligence of the driver of the auto, thereby, the owner of the crime bus is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No.AP 28Z 5847 and caused the death of Nimmakayala @ Kasimkota Chinna Narasamma on 22.03.2023 at 8 a.m.?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? and

3.To what relief?”

9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8 and X.1 to X.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the driver of the crime bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked.

10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.16,75,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

11. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimants and A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of the crime bus respectively.

12. Heard Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2399 of 2017 and Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2017.

13. Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submits that claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime bus; that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of P.W.2, who is auto driver; that Tribunal awarded abnormal compensation without considering the material on record and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

14. Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants sub