THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 and 402 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 is directed against the order, dated

18.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.402 of 2021 is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2017 on the file the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟).

2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by way of common judgment.

3. Both the appeals are preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are children of the deceased Shaik Madar Saheb and Shaik Beebi Jan (hereinafter called as „the deceased No.1 and 2‟) who died in a motor accident. The respondent No.4 is driver of the crime vehicle and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are legal representatives of the respondent No.1-late Shaik Sharif.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 28.09.2014 at about 09.45 A.M., when Shaik Beebi Jan and her husband Shaik Madar Saheb were proceeding on a motor cycle which was driven by her husband and at about 9.30 A.M., when they reached near turning at Ananthapuram Village, Kaligiri Mandal, at that time, one A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 belong to Kavali Depot while proceeding from Gudladona Village to Siddanakonduru being driven by 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, Shaik Madar Saheb died on the spot and Shaik Beebi Jan sustained severe injuries and she was shifted to Elite Hospital, Tirupati, where she succumbed to injuries on 05.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. A case was registered in Crime No.148 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the 2^nd respondent in Kaligiri Police Station.

iii) Seeking for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- each along with interest against respondents 1 and 2 on the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 in a motor accident, the claimants filed motor vehicle original petition.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and further denied the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of driving of 2^nd respondent and there is negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle and that the amount claimed is excessive.

6. Respondent No.2 being the driver of the bus filed counter denying manner of accident, age and income of the deceased. He further contended that the drove the vehicle slowly and due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle only, the accident occurred.

7. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2017:

1. Whether theaccident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 by the 2^nd Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Beebi Jan?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?

8. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2017:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 by the 2^nd Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Madar Saheb?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?

9. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs1to 3wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.4weremarked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 is examined in both the petitions.

10. On the material, the tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the