The appellate court must ensure just compensation is awarded, overriding findings of contributory negligence unless clearly evidenced otherwise, affirming courts' obligation to award fair compensation irrespective of claimed amounts.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘M.V. Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in OP.No.919 of2010, dated 08.06.2011.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondents in OP No.919 of 2010.

3. During pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.2 died. Appellant’s counsel submits that there are no other legal heirs of respondent No.2 as the legal heirs are already on record i.e. appellant Nos.1 to 3-petitioners.

4. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of deceased Beligini Shankaraiah.

5. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3- petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the deceased Beligini Shankaraiah.

6. On 19.06.2010, Shankaraiah was on his motor-cycle bearing No.AP-36AA-3580 and he reached Ghanpur bus stand at 8.00 p.m., RTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5908 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of Shankaraiah and he died on the spot. On the complaint, Police has registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2010 against the driver of the bus. Respondent No.2 is the mother of the deceased and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for.

7. Respondent No.1 filed counter and contended that the deceased drove his motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bumper of the bus and he fell down and died, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the claim is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the OP.

8. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that her son died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and compensation be awarded to the appellants-petitioners and to her.

9. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether on 19.06.2010 at 8.00 p.m., at Ghanpur bus stand the driver of RTC bus AP-11Z-5908 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in death of deceased Shankaraiah?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom?

3. To what relief?

10. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2- R.Madhusudhan Reddy, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Respondent No.1 got examined RW.1 and no documents are marked on their behalf.

11. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 awarded compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- and as there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased equally to the negligence of RW.1, held that the appellants-petitioners are entitled for 50% of the amount which is Rs.2,51,000/- and awarded interest @ 6% per annum directing respondent No.1 to pay the same.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence brought on record is sufficient to establish that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus and the Tribunal failed to compute the income of the deceased in a proper manner and has taken the income as Rs.4,000/- per month, awarded less amount. T here is sufficient material on record to prove that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus and the Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased is equally negligent and arrived at contributory negligence at 50% which is perverse. Counsel to substantiate his con