IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court can reduce compensation awarded by the Tribunal if it finds the original amount excessive or incorrectly calculated based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

(A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.)

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 09.11.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.307 of 2014 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation sought by the claimants on account of the death of B. Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 28.11.2009 at 03:30 PM, awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards compensation.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 28.11.2009 at about 03:30 p.m. on Chittoor-Palamaner road while the deceased was driving his two wheeler slowly and going towards Motharapalle the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1110 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and later died on the spot. Station House Officer, Traffic Police Station, Chittoor registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was the only breadwinner of their family and due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their breadwinner, his earnings and also his love and affection. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

4. Second and third respondents remained ex parte.

5. First respondent got filed a counter denying the material allegations of the petitioners contending in substance that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high and excessive. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased as such first respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP 11 Z 1110, or due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP03 AH 3460 by the deceased, or by both?

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

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent, no evidence was let in and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the claimants and against the contesting respondent/APSRTC and awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards compensation.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the un-successful respondents/APSRTC filed the present Appeal.

10. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is:

Whether the award of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.307 of 2014, dated 09.11.2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor in awarding compensation of Rs.6,48,000/- against the original claim of Rs.7,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

POINT:

11. Sri K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/APSRTC, would contend that the evidence did not reveal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and, according to him, the deceased was negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal awarded excessive co