THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

MACMA No.171 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-corporation has preferred this appeal, under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order and decree dated 01.03.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No. 104 of 2013, whereby compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was awarded in favour the claimants i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Gudi Srikanth

Reddy,

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.2012, while the deceased, after completing his work, left the Reddy Labs, Hyderabad, on his Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP-09 AS-8200 and was traveling towards his residence, at around 7:50 p.m., in front of the Kukatpally Traffic Police Station, his motorcycle was hit from behind by an RTCbus bearing No.AP-11-Z-6985, allegedly due to the negligent and rash driving of the bus driver. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained severe internal and external injuries (including head and shoulder fractures, injuries to his chest and abdomen) and subsequently died. The police registered a criminal

case, vide Crime No. 294 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC and after completinginvestigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the RTC Bus. Stating that the deceased has completed his First Year M-Pharmacy, besides working at Reddy Labs, Hyderabad, who paid asum of Rs.15,000/- per month, that he was expecting more than one lakh rupees permonth and that he has also obtained passport to go abroad, the parents of the deceased i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-corporation filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver, rejected the plea of contributory negligence and awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,50,000/-in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition to till the date of realization.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-TSRTC vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in attributing full negligence to the bus driver, without considering possible contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding a Pulsar motorcycle; that the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per month is not supported by reliable documentary evidence, since during the probation period the deceased was paid only Rs.7,000/- per month; that non-joinder of the motorcycle’s owner and insurer is a fatal omission; and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and disproportionate.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants contended that the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant-corporation is liable to pay compensation; that there is no credible proof of contributory negligence by the deceased; that although the deceased was paid only Rs.7,000/- per month during probation, it was reasonably presumed by the Tribunal based on his M-Pharmacy qualification and company testimony that he would earn Rs.15,000/- after probation; and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.

6. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the TSRTC bus is clearly established. While comi