Negligence in motor accident cases is established through eyewitness testimony and legal documentation, impacting the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. A.P.S.R.T.C. / Respondent No.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District & Sessions judge, Rajahmundry (for short “the MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2014 has filed present appeal questioning the decree and judgment dated 25.11.2014, where under as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,14,000/-.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT and Respondent No.5 is the driver of the bus.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and Respondents.

Case of claimants:

4. One Gundu Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 to 4 met with an accident on 03.06.2008. While the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3364 (hereinafter referred to “the offending vehicle”) came from the behind and dashed the cycle. Due to which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on back of his head and all over the body. He was shifted to GGH Hospital, Rajahmundry. From there he was shifted to V. Krishnamurthy's Hospital for better treatment. However on 06.07.2008 he breathed his last due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants spent huge amount for treatment etc. Deceased was working as a Watchman in a Iron and Cement godown at Rajahmundry and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost all kinds of support from the deceased and as they being legal heirs and dependents entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

(ii). A case in crime No.118 of 2008 was registered in Bommuru Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted.

Case of Respondent No.2:

5. The allegations as to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is incorrect. The two cyclists were coming side by side while talking to each other. Inspite of driver of the offending vehicle sounded horn, slowed down the bus and applied brakes, in confusion cyclist fell down and sustained injuries. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased himself was negligent. The death is not due to the accident injuries and there is no proximity between the death and the injuries caused due to the accident. The claimants shall prove that they are the only legal heirs and dependents on the deceased apart from age, occupation, income of the deceased.

6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

(1). Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3364 by its driver, 1st Respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the Respondents.?

(3) To what relief?

7. Evidence before the learned MACT:

Findings of the learned MACT:

8. PW.1, wife of deceased is not an eye witness to the a