THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.590 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (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 was that on 16.11.2014 the deceased was going towards Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani on a motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TR-8012 and on the way at about 4:15 p.m., when he reached near Godavarikhani 5-A incline cross roads, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4898 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, dashed the motor bike in opposite direction, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the bus driver was not rash and negligent in causing the accident, but the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1 as alleged by the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so, at 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 A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.28,89,888/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for RTC. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as he has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and colluded against the bus, and that the tribunal has failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the tribunal has awarded huge compensation by assessing the income of the deceased, without there being any proof filed by the claimants. He has further argued that the tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads and has granted high amount of compensation. Therefore, prayed to reduce the same and further prayed to fix contributory negligence on part of the deceased.

11. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident?

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

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

4. To what relief ? 12. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident.

b) A perusal of the FIR/Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A3 reveals that it is filed against the driver of the RTC bus and the recitals of the charge sheet further reveals that, while the deceased was going on his motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TR-8012 at about 6:15 hours, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4898 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motor bike of the deceased in opposite direction resulting in bleeding injuries and the deceased died on the spot. Further, PW2 was examined as an eye witness.

c) PW2 is Kondaparthi Sanjeev Kumar, his evidence reveals that he was standing at the Godavarikhani