THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2902 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, 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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 27.05.2016 at about 12:00 p.m., while the deceased was going on TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP-29BT-4335 from Malakpet towards Dilsukhnagar, and when he reached near Moosarambagh X-Roads, the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to injuries while being shifted to hospital. Thus, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the occurrence of accident and also the averments with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the RTC Bus was not negligent in causing the accident and that the deceased himself was negligent.

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

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased Dharmaram Kumavath, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP-29Z-946, by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 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.15,50,000/- with an interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the MACMA.No.101 of 2021 is filed by RTC and MACMA.No.260 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.

8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivas Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the RTC and Sri Pallati Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the claimants.

9. The learned counsel for the RTC has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant amount under various heads without following any principles of assessment. He further argued that there was no negligence on part of the bus driver and that he was never rash and negligent. He further contended that the deceased himself contributed to the accident, while the Bus has stopped at red signal, the deceased has negligently started his vehicle and hit against the bus. He further argued that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- without their being any proof and further awarded huge amount under various heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has submitted that the RTC Bus dashed the motor bike from behind at the red signal and that the manner in which the accident has occurred itself proves the rash and negligence of the bus driver. He further submitted that the deceased used to run a Kirana and General Store and is also a distributor of a Tea Company, and also was a Real Estate Agent and thus, out of these multifarious business activities, he used to earn more than Rs.50,000/- per month and thus prayed to take the income of the deceased as atleast Rs.25,000/- per month and award more compensation.

11) Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:-

1. Whether the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 was not rash and negligent in causing the accident on 27.05.2016 resulting in the death of the deceased-

Dharmaram Kumavath?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligenc