THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2018 is filed by the Claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 is filed by the RTC Corporation against order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2014, order dated 09.04.2018. The claimants before the Tribunal had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of Sri T.Naresh, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 02.11.2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2013, the deceased along with his colleague were proceeding on Motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-WB-TR-0232 from Nallakunta and when they reached Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, the driver of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-1572 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased motorcycle from behind, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The Police, registered a case against the driver of the Bus, vide Crime No.707/2013, under Section 304-A of IPC.

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as ‘Customer Supporting’ in C.M.C., Limited, Gachibowli and due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have become destitute and lost their dependency for which claimants claimed Rs.30,00,000/-, as compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondents filed counter- affidavit, denying the averments made in the petition including the manner of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and also age, occupation and income of the deceased and submitted that due to self- negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs Nos.1 and 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased T. Naresh to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1572 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?.

8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.22,28,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

9. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation and the respondent – RTC Corporation prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 to set aside the tribunal order.

10. The learned Counsel for the R.T.C. Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased at Rs.14,472/- per month even though PW.3 Manager (HR) did not file his authorization letter and service record or bank statement to prove the income of the deceased and also further contended that learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the claimants did not make the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition and prayed this Court to set aside the Tribunal order dated 09.04.2018