Court determined enhanced compensation in a motor accident case, affirming negligence of the bus driver and correcting inadequate compensation based on proper income assessment.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1.1 The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.598 of 2009, dated 06.09.2010.

1.2 I.A.No.2 of 2014 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code against the findings recorded on issue Nos.2 and 3 in the award passed in O.P.No.598 of 2009 dated 06.09.2010 by the learned Tribunal.

2. Appellant is the respondent and respondents are the petitioners – claimants – cross appellants [I.A.No.2 of 2014]. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondent.

3. Petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased [Vishwanath Reddy]. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the late Vishwanath Reddy.

4. On 11.02.2009 Vishwanath Reddy was going on a motor cycle, when he reached the outskirts of Chinna Ghanpur village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 of Siddipet depot coming from Jogipet in opposite direction towards the motor cycle of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, as a result Viswanath Reddy died on the spot. Deceased is aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month by working as work Inspector, Housing Corporation, Kolcharam Mandal under the employment of Director, Velugu Project and also earning Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, petitioners were put to loss of future income and support and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Respondent filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred and further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 and prayed for dismissal of the O.P.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the deceased died in the motor accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom.

3) To what relief.

The learned Tribunal has recasted the first issue which is as follows:

1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

7. Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, got examined PW2– P.Srinivas Reddy, PW3 – T.Venkatlaxmi and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The Driver of the RTC bus is examined as RW1-B.Anjaiah and no documents are marked.

8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents marked thereon, awarded compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which is impugned in the appeal and in I.A.No.2 of 2014.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant [MACMA.No.1602 of 2011] – respondent submits that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RW1, who is an eye-witness to the incident and he deposed that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The learned Tribunal has not considered Exs.A1 and A3 in proper perspective, also failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and prayed to set aside the award.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents - petitioners – cross appellants in I.A.No.2 of 2014 submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and erroneously granted meager compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- contrary to