THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.07 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by NEKRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, 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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 25.01.2015 the deceased-S. Gopal and one Deepak went to Kandekeri, Bidar District on motor cycle bearing No.AP-11-Q-8614 and on 27.01.2015 at about 19:00 hours, while they were returning to Hyderabad, when they reached Budhera X Road of Munipally Mandal, one Karnataka RTC bus bearing No.KA-32-F- 1727 which was proceeding towards Zaheerabad from Hyderabad came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle, due to which the deceased-Gopal who was riding the bike and the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The petitioners filed a claim petition seeking Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-RTC has filed counter denying the material averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age and income of the deceased and has further denied the rash and negligence on part of the bus driver. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.2/driver has also filed counter alleging that a false case is filed for seeking compensation and has denied the occurrence of the accident. He further contended that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and has stated that the rider of the bike did not hold a valid driving license.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death to the Deepak Raju Devkate, due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.AP-11-Z-7380?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at

what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, no

evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.23,38,000/- Aggrieved by the said order and decree dated 31.10.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding huge compensation and that the Tribunal has failed to account for contributory negligence on part of the bike rider. He further contended that the deceased did not hold a valid driving license and thus the Tribunal ought to have fixed negligence on both the drivers equally. He further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and has awarded excess amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has prayed to confirm the award passed by the Tribunal.

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

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the

driver of the RTC bus bearing No.KA-32-F-1727?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased who was riding motor bike bearing No.AP-11-Q-8614?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) The case of the petitioners is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.KA-32-F-1727. PW1 is not an eye witnes