JUDGMENT :

Since common issues arise in both the Appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MACMA.No.30 of 2011 is filed by claimants/petitioners and MACMA.No.627 of 2011 is filed by 2nd and 3rd respondents/APSRTC against the decree and award dt.08.10.2010 passed in MVOP.No.657 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, at Hyderabad.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioners/claimants herein filed the above MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the death of Sri Varkala Yadagiri in a motor accident dt.30.01.2008.

5. The petitioners/claimants are the parents and the elder brother of Sri Yadagiri/deceased.

6. The case of petitioners/claimants in brief is that on 30.01.2008 when the deceased was proceeding on his cycle towards NTR Nagar, Saroornagar, Raithu Bazar, a bus bearing Registration No.AP-10-Z-4690 of the APSRTC driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the bicycle of the Yadagiri/deceased from behind, which resulted in instantaneous death of Sri Yadagiri/deceased slumped and died instantaneously. Thus, the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, granted Rs.6,88,000/- with 7.5% per annum and held all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of 2011 contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income of Yadagiri/deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month by ignoring the salary certificates/Exs.A.7 and A.8, and it erred in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses and meager amounts are granted towards the conventional heads.

9. On the other hand, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in MACMA.No.627 of 2011 contested that the Tribunal ought not to have held that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus/1st respondent, and should have held that there is contributory negligence on the part of 1st respondent; further the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and the compensation granted is excessive and the amounts granted under the ‘conventional heads’, is also meager.

10. Now, the point arises for determination is,

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driver of the driver of the bus? And

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded to petitioner is just and proper?”.

Point (i) :

11. The 2nd and 3rd respondents/APSRTC pleaded that the Tribunal ought to have considered that Sri Yadagiri/deceased was proceeding negligently on his bicycle without observing the traffic. Except this pleading, the respondents could not make out any circumstances, much less any fact in the cross-examination of eye-witness. The eye-witness/PW.2 categorically deposed against the driver of the bus. The police, after due investigation, filed Charge-Sheet/Ex.A.2 against the driver of the bus for rash and negligent driving. It is undisputed fact that the bus hit the cycle of Sri Yadagiri/deceased from behind. Consequently, it shall be held that the evidence placed by petitioners is substantiating the pleaded manner of accident and in the absence of any material, the claim of contributory negligence on the part of Sri Yadagiri/deceased in the accident, shall fail.

Point (ii) :

12. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged around 27 years, a bachelor, and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Computer Designer of Textiles in a private company, viz., Deep Jyothi Textile Mills. No independent material is filed to prove the age of the Yadagiri/deceased. However, considering the entries in Post-Mortem Report/Ex.A.6, the age of the Yadagiri/deceased is taken at 27 years.

13. With regard to occupation, the appellants/petitioners file