THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act, 1988’) by Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘TSRTC’) arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum- Court of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.393 of 2019, dated 04.08.2021.

2.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) r/w Rule 455/1B of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum for the death of the deceased V.Vijaya Lakshmi from the respondent No.1 (respondent No.3 herein) and respondent No.2 (appellant herein) jointly and severally in a road accident that took place on 13.01.2019. 2.2. Respondent No.1-petitioner No.1 is the husband, respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased-V.Vijaya Lakshmi.

3. On 13.01.2019 at about 8.30 hours, V.Vijaya Lakshmi came to Secunderabad from Alwal for shopping and while she was walking at 31 bus stop, Secunderabad, on reaching Baba lodge meanwhile, the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6561 drove the same in a negligent manner with high speed, dashed Vijaya Lakshmi from backside and the left side wheel of the bus ran over on her two legs. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries all over the body and was shifted to Max Cure Hospital for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, she died on 15.02.2019 at 14.56 hours. Deceased was aged about 47 years and was doing household service and tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On the complaint, SHO P.S. Malakpet registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2019 under Section 304(A) against the driver of the crime vehicle and prayed to allow the O.P.

4. Driver of the crime vehicle (respondent No.3 herein) filed counter and contended that there is no negligence on his part, he has not committed any offence and there is no fault on his side, denied the age, avocation and the accident the manner in which it has occurred, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. TSRTC (appellant-respondent No.2) filed separate counter, denied the age, avocation and earning of the deceased and the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners were put to strict proof of the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, the amount claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?

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

3. To what relief?

7. Respondent No.1-petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1, examined PW.2-T.Prasad and PW.3-M.Padma, and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1 through PW.3. Driver and TSRTC reported no evidence.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence led by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners and perusing Exs.A1 to A6, X1 has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded an amount of Rs.21,65,410/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the driver and RTC jointly and severally with a direction to deposit the amount within one month from the date of order (04.08.2021).

9. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1-petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of the petition and respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 was awarded compensation.

10. It is stated in the cause title of the Appeal that respondent No.3 is not a necessary party in the proceedings as no relief is claimed against him.

11.1. Counsel submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.21,65,410/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and has committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 1