The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1722 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. The respondent No.2 (The Managing Director, APSRTC) in M.V.O.P.No.244 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, [‘for short ‘MACT’], filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, questioning the sustainability of the award and decree dated 26.06.2015 passed therein.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and respondent No.5 herein is the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7658 [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’]. He remained ex parte before the MACT.

4. The parties will be hereinafter referred, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

The case of the claimants, in brief, is that –

5. [i] The 1st claimant is the husband, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are her daughters and 4th claimant is the mother of one Jyothi Marthamma [ [herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’]. On 24.06.2013, the deceased went to attend her employment as labourer in bricks Kiln of Thokala Venkateswarlu and while she

was crossing the road near the Kiln between Sankarapuram and Thimmayapalem villages road, within the limits of Addanki Police Station, the offending vehicle/APSRTC bus coming from Darsi side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, whereby she sustained injuries all over the body and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Addanki from there to Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole, but while undergoing treatment, she breathed her last on 25.06.2013.

[ii] A case in Crime No.126 of 2013 was registered in Addanki Police Station for the offences under Section 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver/1st respondent.

[iii] The deceased was aged about 35 years working as coolie, earning Rs.200/- per day and also attending domestic works like cooking, washing, cloths, housekeeping etc., and in all she was earning Rs.10,000/-. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost financial and every support of the deceased. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

The case of the 2nd respondent, in brief:-

6. The claimants shall prove their relationship with the deceased, negligence of the driver of the RTC bus, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants etc., and in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the deceased died on account of the injuries received in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7658 by the first respondent or was there any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as alleged by the second respondent?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

Evidence before the learned MACT:-

Oral Evidence:

8. [i] Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1. He has stated about the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, her age, occupation and income and death of the deceased due to accident as well as employment of 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent, registration of the case by Police and the cause of death of the deceased is due to accident.

[ii] Further, one Jyothi Narayanamma said to be an eye witness to the accident, was examined as PW.2 on behalf of the claimants and she has stated about the accident and negligence of the driver of the bus.

[iii] On behalf of the respondents, M.Obaiah, driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. He has stated that when the bus reached near Brick Kiln, he

has observed that one tipper was stopped on the left side of the road, he has blown horn and while crossing the tipper, one pedestrian i.e., the deceased, was crossing the road from back side of the tipper without noticing the bus. He has applie