The court reaffirmed that a higher compensation than claimed can be awarded to ensure just compensation, highlighting principles of composite negligence and the role of established precedents in determining damages.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. The sole respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. in M.V.O.P.No.554 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court, S.P.S.R. Nellore District (for short “the learned MACT”) feeling aggrieved by the award and decree dated 14.11.2011, filed the present appeal.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claimants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondent.

Case of the claimants:

4. (i). One Bapanapalli Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the only son of the claimants, aged about "27" years and was working as a teacher and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He was also taking tuitions.

(ii). On 10.02.2007, the fateful day, in the morning at about 9:00 A.M., the deceased along with some others boarded an Auto bearing registration No. A.P. 26 X 3725 and was proceeding towards Jaladanki to attend his duty at his school. At about 09:30 A.M., when the auto was near Budamgunta cross road, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.Ap 28 Z 500 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), proceeding from Udayagiri to Kavali, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, causing the accident. The deceased and others sustained grievous injuries.

(iii). The deceased was immediately shifted to Area Hospital, Kavali, from there to Narayana Hospital, Nellore and thereafter to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai. On 17.02.2007, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost everything and their entire future became dark. Hence, they are entitled for Rs.8,90,000/-.

(iv). They had to incur Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenditure and heavy expenditure towards transportation.

5. A case in Crime No.24 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

Case of the respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C (appellant):

6. (i). The negligence of the driver of the auto is the cause for the accident.

(ii). Neither the driver of the A.P.R.T.C. bus nor the respondent Corporation is liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

(iii). The claimants are put to strict proof as to the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the bus, age, occupation income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants.

(iv). In any event, the compensation of Rs.8,90,000/- claimed by the claimants is excessive.

Findings of the learned MACT

7. By referring to the evidence of the eye-witness-P.W.2 and the crime record, as well as the post-mortem certificate etc., the learned MACT believed the negligence of the driver of the A.PS.R.T.C. bus. The contention that in another case in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2008 the learned I Additional District Judge- cum-I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, gave a finding that the driver of the auto is also negligent and therefore the liability can be restricted to 50% for A.P.S.R.T.C., is not binding on the Tribunal and the same was distinguished with reference to pleadings and evidence. Particularly referring to that when there are two wrongdoers, all wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable. After referring to the decisions in T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others , (2008) 3 SCC 748 [Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2008] case and also in P. Purushotham Reddy vs. Managing Director, Patc , 2002 ACJ 1011 etc. the Tribunal made the respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. (appellant) liable to pay the compensation.

8. While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of "13" and awarded Rs.34,725/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,68,000/- towards lo