HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.164 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order and decree dated 08.08.2018 passed in O.P.No.1058 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Case under SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- together with interest at 7% per annum to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claimants for the death of one Pasumathi Veera Venkata Shaym Babu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about

29 years, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2010, the deceased along with his friend-Mallela Appa Rao, were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AB 8502 from Choutuppal to Mandollagudem and when they reached the outskirts of Lingareddygudem Village at about 5:00 pm, one RTC hired bus bearing No.AP-24-W-8298 being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and his friend sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered by the Chotuppal Police, Nalgonda, against the RTC Bus vide Crime No.250 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The claimants, who are the wife and son of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. The owner of the bus/respondent No.1 in O.P remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/respondent No.2 in O.P filed counter and denied the material averments and disputed negligence, quantum of income, and its liability. The RTC/respondent No.3 in O.P denied the negligence and shifted the blame on the deceased. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 in O.P, who are parents of the deceased filed counter and claimed compensation.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC Bus and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- to the claimants as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 and fixed liability on Insurance Company, on the ground that there is valid insurance policy and exonerated the RTC from the liability stating that it has only hired the bus.

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

6. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle/RTC Bus is corroborated by investigation records (FIR/charge sheet). Since there is no material on record to disprove that finding, the same does not require any interference by this Court.

7. With regard to the assessment of notional income, the evidence shows that the deceased was a Senior Electrician involved in minor earning activities and that no documentary proof of income was available. The Tribunal, therefore, determined a reasonable notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month, keeping in view the earning capacity of the deceased and prevailing local conditions. After deducting one- third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘17’, the Tribunal assessed the compensation. As the appellant-insurance company has not produced any material to demonstrate that these parameters are erroneous or unreasonable, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment, which stands justified and is liable to be sustained.

8. Coming to the question of liability, since the crime vehicle was only hired by the RTC and the same was insured, the insurance policy was in force and as suc