Negligence of the bus driver was proven, leading to enhancement of compensation to Rs.6,22,000, emphasizing the need for just compensation in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Respondent No.2 (A.P.S.R.T.C) in M.V.O.P.No.978 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.04.2012 passed therein by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur (for short “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal disputing the liability and quantum of compensation ordered.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants. Respondent No.4 herein is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 262 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) owned by the appellant and he is the proforma party in this appeal. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the proceedings before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

4. One Akana Devi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant Nos.2 and 3. She was aged about 34 years, hale and healthy, attending tailoring and lace work. She boarded the offending vehicle on 07.07.2009 for travelling to Narsapur. When the bus/offending vehicle reached near Thomas Bridge, Mogalturu road, Narsapur, the bus was stopped and while the passengers including the deceased were getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus moved it in a rash and negligent manner without noting the nod of the conductor. As a result, the deceased fell down, sustained severe head injury and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at the hospital on the same day.

5. A case in Crime No.137 of 2009 was registered for the offences under Section 304 -A IPC and the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted. Claimant No.1 died; Claimant Nos.2 and 3, being the sole legal heirs and dependents, are entitled for compensation. The deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by attending Tailoring and lace works and was contributing her entire income to the family. Claimant Nos.2 and 3, being unemployed in view of their age, were dependent on the deceased.

Case of respondent No.2 / A.P.S.R.T.C:

6. The petitioners shall prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus / offending vehicle. The deceased got down from the bus without the knowledge of the conductor and the driver of the bus. There was negligence, if any is on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

Findings of the learned MACT:

7. The evidence of eye witness P.W.2, one Nalli Yesubabu, coupled with the crime record covered by FIR and charge sheet, establishes the negligence and there is no rebuttal evidence from the RTC. Therefore, the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and death of the deceased due to the accident are proved.

8. With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned MACT adopted the income at Rs.100/- per day, i.e.Rs.36,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased. The multiplier applicable is "16". Rs.10,000/- added towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. A compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- was awarded in all, as against the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Arguments in the appeal:

For appellant/ A.P.S.R.T.C:

9. (i). Negligence of the deceased in getting down from the bus is ignored by the learned MACT.

(ii). The income of the deceased is take