HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the TSRTC aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.414 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Karimnagar (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 05.07.2017, in the morning hours, the deceased left from his house on his TATA ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15-TV-2893 and on the way, at about 1.30 P.M., when he reached the outskirts of Sulthanabad village, he has stopped his vehicle by the side of the road to attend nature call and after attending nature call and while he was crossing the road, in the mean time one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 being driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed dashed him, due to which he received grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is their case that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy and he was owner-cum-driver of TATA ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15TV-2893 and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments in the petition with regard to age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the RTC bus and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as he suddenly jumped out from the shrubs to the left side of the road to cross the road without observing the vehicles and the traffic and due to the sudden jump, the deceased lost control over himself, fell down and sustained injuries which lead to his death.

6. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the death of Sri Kallepalli Jeevan was due to Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 05.07.2017 and is it due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 driven by its driver?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal needs any interference?

4) To what relief?

7. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 & Ex.X.1 . On behalf of TSRTC R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, TSRTC preferred the present appeal to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

9. Heard the submission of Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. No vakalath was filed on behalf of the respondents.

10. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of RTC bus was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident and that the deceased due to his own negligence has jumped out from the bushes, as a result fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1 and has fastened the liability on RTC. He further submitted that the Tribunal granted exorbitant amount of compensation under various heads and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has passed its orders on sound reasoning and has granted just compensation and therefore prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-29Z-3645?

2. Wh