IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that legal representatives, including married sons, have the right to claim compensation for the death of a family member in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 dated 22.12.2015.

2. The appellant is A.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3320 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and son of one Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. Respondent No. 3 herein is the driver of the crime bus.

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

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

(i) On 15.10.2014, at about 05.30 p.m. when the deceased proceeding on his moped near Saibaba Temple, Tadepalligudem, the crime bus driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the moped of deceased, resulting in sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, on 23.10.2014, he succumbed to injuries.

(ii) The deceased was doing business and earned Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Being dependents, they claim compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the driver and owner.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not the 1st respondent/driver.

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

“1. Whether the accident that occurred on 15.10.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. near Saibaba temple, Tadepalligudem due to rash and negligent driving of bus AP 28 Z 3320 by 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion 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.8,30,000/- 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.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC.

10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants.

11. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant 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 the deceased; that Tribunal awarded abnormal compensation without considering the material on record and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Yerradoddi Ramchandra Reddy, 2024 (3) ALD 699 (AP) as well pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639.

12. Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime bus; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants without any appeal or cross objections; that even the married and earning son of th