THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.405 & X-OBJECTIONS No.42 OF 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

MACMA.No.405 of 2021 is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.207 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court-Cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal”). The claimants have filed Cross Objections No.42 of

2021.

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 15.07.2014 the deceased and his two friends were proceeding towards Karimangar on TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-25- K-1025 and that on the way at about 10:30 p.m.,, when they reached the outskirts of Chandrampet Village, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-1220 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from opposite direction and hit the motor bike, as a result of which the deceased and his two friends fell down and died on the spot. Thus, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4) Respondent No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation nd income of the deceased. It is further contended by them that three members were going on a motor bike, thus contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration and that since, there was overload on the motor bike, the deceased lost control over the motor bike and thus, came in a high speed and dashed to the right side bumper of the parked bus and fell down and sustained injuries, and that the bus was parked to the extreme left side of the road.

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

1. Whether the pleaded accident took place on

15.07.2014 at about 10:30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap-29-Z-1220 driven by the first respondent in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries and was died on the spot?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.12,82,000/- Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the RTC has filed the present appeal.

8. Heard Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the appellant and Sri M. Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 5.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no negligence of the driver of RTC Bus as the bus was parked to the extreme left side of the road. He further argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike, as three members were going on the motor bike. The deceased was a pillion rider, but the counsel contended that the rider was rash and negligent as he allowed two more persons to travel along with him on the motor bike and that due to the over load, the rider of the bike could not control it and thus, went and dashed against the parked bus. He therefore, prayed to consider the said aspect of contributory negligence and further, the counsel has argued with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded stating that since there are five claimants 1/4^th has to be deducted towards personal expenses and that the Tribunal has deducted

1/5^th

10. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of RTC and that there is no negligence of the bike rider. Triple riding cannot be taken to be as contributory negligence