THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the RTC, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1306 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 17.01.2016, the deceased along with another person proceeding from Godal to Kothakuntapally on CT 100 bearing No.AP-09 AN- 1627 and when they reached Lingala X Roads, one TSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11Z-3772 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bike due to which the deceased received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the family members of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Respondents filed counter by denying all material averments in the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age and income of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the motor bike rider and there is no negligence of the driver of RTC bus.

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

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner R.Bandhaiah, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus No.AP-11Z-7380 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

6. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the RTC no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.24,64,200/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 30.10.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

8. Heard Sri. R. Anurag, learned standing counsel for TSRTC and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amounts under various heads and that while the claim of the claimants is to an extent of Rs.8,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.26,64,200/- towards compensation which is highly excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the negligence on part of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligence of the driver of RTC bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in making 1/5^th deduction instead of making 50% deduction towards income of the deceased as he was bachelor at the time of accident. Thus he prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation even if it is more than that claimed by the claimants and that the Tribunal passed its order on a sound reasoning and thus there is no need to interfere with the same and requested to confirm the order of the Tribunal.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike in the occurrence of accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) P.W.1 who is the mother of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident. A perusal of the Ex.A.4/charge sheet reveals that it is filed against the driver of the RTC Bus. It further reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. P.W.2 is one S. Bala Swamy who is listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. He stated during his