THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2673 of 2016

JUDGMENT

1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. and the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. in MVOP No.281 of 2013, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the learned MACT”) feeling aggrieved by the award and decree dated 18.06.2015 filed the present appeal. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein

are the claimants before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

2(i). One Mr. Muthuluri Chenchi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), on 26.08.2012 at about 9:00 P.M., while travelling from Lakshminarayanapuram Village, Darsi Mandal on a motor cycle, near Rajampalli Village on Podili-Darsi Road, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 289 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), proceeding from Atmakur to Hyderabad, came from Podili side going towards Darsi, hit the motor cycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased and motor cycle fell down and it was dragged to some distance along with the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle stopped the bus and ran away from there. The deceased was

shifted to Government Hospital, Podili, and at the Government Hospital, Podili, it was declared that the deceased was brought dead.

2(ii). Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and claimant No.4 is the father of the deceased. All are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. Deceased was aged about „29‟ years; hale and healthy; attending cultivation works and agricultural operations in Ac.4.00 of land owned by him and Ac.3.00 of land of one Mr.Ambati Tirupathi Reddy and Ac.3.40 cents of land of one M. Venkateswara Reddy. The deceased used to raise paddy, green gram etc. and earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and contributing the same for the family. The death of deceased has exposed the claimants to loss in all respects including the financial support.

Case of the appellants/APSRTC:

3. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, in fact the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, income and dependency of the claimants and in any event quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

4. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

i) Whether Muthuluri Chenchi Reddy died in the accident caused by the motor vehicle i.e., A.S.R.T.C. bus No.AP 29 Z 289 on 26.08.2012 at 9:00 PM near Rajampalli bus stand Centre on Podili-Darsi road due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation claimed and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

5. Evidence before the learned MACT:

Findings of the learned MACT:

a) On Negligence:

6. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. His evidence is not helpful. But PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He has stated that he has seen the accident along with others and cried loudly. The driver of the bus stopped the bus and ran away from there.

7. The evidence of RW.1 as to the denial of negligence is not much use. To prove the negligence of the deceased, positive evidence is not there except oral evidence of RW.1. The evidence of PW.2, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as the cause for the accident / death.

b) On Quantum of Compensation:

8. PW.3 and PW.4 are the land owners stated about the deceased cultivating the land. Pattadar passbooks are in the name of PW.3 and PW.4. Age of the deceased is „29‟ years. His income can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. On applying multiplier „17‟, the compensation comes to Rs.12,24,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 17). Out of the same, 1/4^th is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the entitlement comes to Rs.9,