The court ruled that negligence was proven in a motor vehicle accident, requiring compensation to reflect just and fair standards, resulting in an increased award from the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT:

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after, for short ‘Corporation’) preferred present appeal challenging order dated 29.06.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.517/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, aggrieved by the determination of compensation in favour of deceased claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:

(a) Claimants are five in number, being wife, two minor sons and one minor daughter and mother of deceased instituted claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with future interest. Husband of 1^st claimant, aged 42 years, was in service as A.R. constable at relevant point. He, along with his minor son, while proceeding by walk towards A.R. Police Quarters, at about 21.00 hours on 15.05.2014, was hit by Corporation Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 3768, which was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam. The accident stated to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of bus, resulting in the deceased sustaining multiple bodily injuries, though he was immediately shifted to private hospital, was declared dead by then. The incident was reported to police, who registered crime No.176 of 2014 against driver of bus and after investigation, charge sheet came to be laid and taken cognizance by concerned court in C.C. No.842 of 2014.

(b) The deceased being A.R. Police Constable, was stated to be earning Rs.24,503/- per month, therefore, claim was instituted for Rs.20,00,000/-. 1^st respondent, being the driver, merely adopted counter filed by 2^nd respondent. 2^nd respondent filed counter inter alia stating that the driver of the bus cannot be said to be negligent in causing the accident, it was the deceased who was in fact negligent as he was in drunken state, therefore, when bus was passing, he suddenly stepped onto the road and dashed the bus and fell down, thereby causing serious injuries. In a way, it is a case of neither no negligence nor contributory negligence. In the counter, further, it was also denied regarding deceased earnings, age and resultantly, the amount claimed.

(c) In order to justify the claim, 5^th claimant got examined as P.W.1, an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2, and Administrative Officer of District Police as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. For respondents, 1^st respondent - driver was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

(d) Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by other parties, Tribunal has framed following issues:

“1. Whether the deceased-Manapuram Gowri Sankara Rao, S/o late Narayana Murty died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident that took place on 15.05.2014 at 21:00 hours opposite to A.R. Police quarters on NH.16 road, Etcherla Police Station limits, Srikakulam District? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP:29/Z-3768 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased-Manapuram Gowri Sankara Rao, S/o late Narayana Murthy? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

(e) The Tribunal while answering 1^st issue has considered the evidence of P.W.1, in particular P.W.2, who was eyewitness to the accident and Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A2 – Charge Sheet and Ex.A3- Post Mortem Report and Ex.A4 – report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ex.A5 – Inquest report to come to conclusion that t