Negligence in driving caused an accident in a public place, leading to liability despite private contract disputes; compensation quantified beyond the claimed amount is justifiable.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.276 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram (for short “the learned MACT”), questioning the dismissal of their claim petition filed the present appeal.

2. The claim was arising out of the death of Manepalli Annaji Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred at A.P.S.R.T.C. complex, Salur, due to the involvement of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6354 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by Respondent No.1.

3. Claimants are the wife and the son of the deceased. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle and the Shift Supervisor of the R.T.C. Depot, Salur remained ex parte.

4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 / Depot Manager and Managing Director contested the case.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the Respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings.

Case of the claimants:

6. Deceased worked as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. became unfit due to medical reasons and out of service from A.P.S.R.T.C. On 03.12.2013 at about 08:00 p.m., the deceased went to Salur R.T.C. depot to enquire about the retirement benefits payable to him. When he was proceeding towards office / garage, Respondent No.1-the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle and dashed the deceased causing severe injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital. But, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Deceased was aged about „58‟ years; hale and healthy; earning Rs.400/- per day on daily wage basis and also Rs.6,000/- as pension. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants become orphans.

7. Case in Cr.No.119 of 2013 was registered at Salur Town Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1 and subsequently charge sheet was laid. Since the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the officials / in charge of the employment of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 owning the offending vehicle, all the Respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

Case of Respondent Nos.3 and 4:

8. The petitioner(s) allegations are incorrect. There was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1. Age, occupation, income of the deceased claimed are incorrect and the claimant is put to strict proof of all the allegations. Negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. Garage is a private place, the movements are restricted and prohibited. There cannot be free access to others. The entry into garage of the R.T.C. is unauthorized. The claimant, being a retired employee, should know the rules and also the tune being dangerous. He is a trespasser. Therefore, not entitled for compensation.

9. Further, Respondent No.1, who was serving as an outsourcing Shramik (employee) at the time of accident. The bus / offending vehicle was handed over to the private contractor/ agency (KLFM) for service and maintenance. The operation of the bus / offending vehicle by Respondent No.1 is without the instructions of Management. The liability, if any, is that of the Management of KLFM. The petition is bad for non-joinder.

10. The outsourcing Shramiks are not entitled to drive the buses and