Compensation awarded must reflect future earning potential, and contributory negligence requires substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

1988, (in short „M.V.Act‟), has been filed by the appellant/APSRTC (in short „Corporation‟), challenging the Award, dated 03.12.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2016 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (in short „the Tribunal).

2. The appellant/Corporation herein is the 2^nd respondent, the respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and respondent No.2 herein is the 1^st respondent (driver of the bus) before the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is the mother of one Noel Kumar (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). The deceased is a 2^nd year polytechnic student in Potti Sri Ramulu Chalavadi Mallikarjuna Rao College of Engineering and Technology, Kothapeta, Vijayawada. On 28.08.2016, at about 07.00 a.m., while the deceased along with his friend Jagadeesh Chandra were proceeding from Raghavaiah park to Rytu Bazar on motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 BG 9227, the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6570 being driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, due to which, both the deceased and his friend fell down and sustained injuries. Subsequently, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment, where the deceased was declared as dead. Police have registered a case in Cr.No.208 of 2016 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the 1^st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. As such, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the deceased.

5. While the 1^st respondent/driver remained ex-parte, the 2^nd respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments and further stated that the petitioner has to prove that the death of the deceased is due to the accident arising out of the use of vehicle No.AP 11 Z 6570 and that the driver of the said bus drove in a rash and negligent manner. It was further stated that it was the deceased and his friend who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and have hit the RTC bus and that there is no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Mr.Gudapati Noel Kumar, son of late Mr.Uday Kumar died due to motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.08.2016 at about 07.00 AM opposite APTDC Office Road, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for and if so from whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief is the petitioner entitled?

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The 2^nd respondent has examined the 1^st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle as RW1, but, no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal having observed that the 1^st respondent has driven the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and having found no supporting evidence on their behalf, fixed the liability jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and awarded Rs.8,40,000/-.

9. Aggrieved by the said liability, the appellant/Corporation preferred this appeal.

10. Heard Sri. Aravalla Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/