The court adjusted the deceased's income from Rs.900 to Rs.2,100 per month, enhancing total compensation to Rs.1,96,800, affirming the need for just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.)

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 28.02.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1088 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Charla Israil was riding his bicycle on the left side of the road margin at 7:00 p.m. on 28.06.1996. From the opposite direction the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP-9Z- 6739 came at high speed and its driver was rash or negligent in driving it and dashed the cyclist leading to his spot death. At Gudlavalleru Police Station Crime No.51 of 1996 was registered as per Ex.A.1-F.I.R. After due investigation police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus as per Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The Motor Vehicles Inspector certified that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect as seen from Ex.A.5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3 and was subjected to autopsy as per Ex.A.4. Children of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1088 of 2010 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed its written statement denying the correctness of the narration of facts contained in the claim petition. It was further stated that as the cyclist was riding the bicycle in a zig-zag manner the negligence was on his part and not on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. It further stated that it paid Rs.50,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased towards full and final settlement and acknowledging the same they gave indemnity bond and discharge voucher. It was for those reasons it prayed for dismissal of the claim.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9Z-6739?

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

3) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the claimants, there was evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and on behalf of the sole respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. there was evidence of RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4.

6. The learned Chairman, Claims Tribunal recorded that the claim being one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants were not obliged to plead and prove rashness or negligence. However, since the evidence was adduced it considered the evidence led on both sides and concluded that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.

7. The deceased was found aged 54 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.900/-. 1/3^rd of it was deducted towards his possible personal and living expenses and the net income was arrived at Rs.600/- and the annual income was Rs.7,200/-. On applying multiplier ‘11’ to the multiplicand it found Rs.79,200/- and granted the same as compensation towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/- and towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- were granted. Thus, total compensation of Rs.91,200/- was granted. It passed the award in the following terms:

“In the result, the petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 is allowed with proportionate costs and an Award is passed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 for Rs. 91,200/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousands and Two Hundred Only) against the respondent-RTC Corpn., together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The respondent is directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order. O