HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.547 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

06.07.2016 while the deceased was proceeding from Sattenapally towards Anantharam on his motor bike, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6970 which was proceeding from Vijayawada towards Amaravathi, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4) The respondent No.1 and 2 filed their complaint denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. He further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike. It is their further contention that the deceased was going in a zigzag manner at a high speed and on observing the same, the driver of the bus took the bus to his right side and stopped the bus, but the deceased who lost control over his motor bike came into contact with the stationed bus and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thus, their contention is that contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased and that there is no rash and negligence on part of the RTC Bus driver.

5. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 06.07.2016 occurred resulting in death of the deceased P. Narendra Naik, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-

6970?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,19,600/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the APSRTC.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation under various heads and that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on part of the RTC Bus driver. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of contributory negligence of the deceased as the accident occurred in the opposite direction and that the rider of the motor bike lost control of the bike and dashed against the bus. He further argued that the petition is bad for non- joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 in proper perspective. He also contended that the petitioners have not filed any proof of income of the deceased, but still the Tribunal has granted Rs.6,000/- per month which is too high. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation and also with regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest and he therefore, prayed to reduce it to 7.5%.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has given a very reasoned judgment awarding just compensation to the claimants and that in view of the loss sustained by the petitioners, the Tribunal has granted 9% interest on the compensation which cannot be interfered with. He therefore prayed to uphold the order and decree of the trial Court.

11. Based on the above rival contentions