THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.07.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.193 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (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 10.03.2020, at about 3:30 p.m., the deceased-Sathyam was going on his Splendour motor bike from his village Vattikammampad towards Suryapet on his personal work and when he reached near Natraj parboiled Rice Mill situated in the outskirts of Beebigudem Village, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed coming from Khammam towards Hyderabad, dashed the motor cycle from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet in 108 Ambulance, but he succumbed to the injuries at 5:00 p.m., while undergoing treatment. It is their case that the deceased is an outdoor photographer and is a member of Photo and Videographer Association and was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month, they claimed a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2 filed its counter affidavit denying the petition averments and further contended that the bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383 is not involved in the accident and that no such accident occurred on 10.03.2016 at 3:30 p.m., and that the RTC driver was not rash and negligent and that the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1. Whether the deceased Byname Cheema Satyam died in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so to what rate and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,35,000/-. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 02.07.2020, the present appeal is filed by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the appellant and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has simply relied upon the oral testimony of PW2 and has held that the accident occurred due to the negligent Act of the RTC bus driver. He further argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased and has applied a wrong multiplier and grossly erred in calculating the total amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has prayed that the Tribunal has correctly calculated the compensation and that there is no need to interfere with the same.

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

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2383?

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

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

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) Learned counsel for the appellants disputed the accident itself, but has failed to produce any evidence. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the petitioners got examined PW2 who is listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. PW2 runs a hotel opposite to Natraj Rice Mill and his evidence reveals that the a