The court clarified that liability in motor vehicle accident claims must be assessed considering preponderance of probabilities without assumptions of inebriation and that compensation should reflect true earning capabilities with proper multipliers applied.

JUDGMENT :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.557 of 2022 filed by the appellants/claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.427 of 2023 filed by the appellants/TSRTC, are directed against the very same Award and decree, dated 17.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.953 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are Managing Director, Depot Manager and the driver of the T.S.R.T.C., on account of death of one Rapolu Narender (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.01.2016 at about 10.30 p.m.

3(i) On 13.01.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., near Bawarchi Hotel, Hayathnagar, Cyberabad on National Highway-65, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-24P-2838 from Sunrise Hospital, Hayathnagar, towards Vinayakanagar Colony, slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached Bawarchi Hotel, on National Highway-65, one T.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP-28- Z-1858 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding in the same direction, came to the wrong side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to the head and fell unconscious. The deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries, fractures and other injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to Sunrise Hospital, Hayathnagar, in 108 Ambulance for first aid. As the condition of the deceased was serious, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, for better treatment. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 15.01.2016 while undergoing treatment at Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet.

3(ii) The Police Hayathnagar registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the said TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-28Z-1858.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 by filing a counter opposed the claim petition denying the averments with respect to date, time, place, manner of occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of RTC bus and the death of the deceased due to injuries suffered in the accident. They pleaded that the accident occurred only due to negligence and mistake of the deceased. Further, they denied the age, health condition, income of the deceased. Further, it is pleaded that the petitioners are making attempts to take advantage of social justice scheme by impleading the bus in an accident, in which the bus is not involved, though the deceased died due to his own fault. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.3, driver of the said bus, filed a counter denying rash and negligent driving on his part being the cause for accident and death of the deceased. He pleaded that he is holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive a heavy passenger bus. Further, he is holding D.L.No.248732/HYD, valid upto July, 2019, Badge No.12385, issued by Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda District. He further pleaded that the petitioners have not filed any document to prove the relationship with the deceased and the age, income