THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the Appellant-TSRTC against the order and decree, dated 30.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P. No.255 of 2016, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’), wherein the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein – petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- for the death of Valusa Sammaiah, father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and son of petitioner No.4, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.12.2015.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.2015, after completion of their works at Jammikunta, the deceased along with his wife Saraswathi was proceeding towards their house situated at Pidisilla village of Mogullaplly Mandal, on TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No. AP 10S 5972 and on their way when they reached the outskirts of Motlapalli village at about

5.00 PM, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2812 drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Mogullapally, registered a case in Crime No.203 of 2015 for the offence under Section

304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle - RTC Bus.

4. The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,48,150/- per annum by doing travel agency business and agriculture. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners sustained loss of dependency, as such, they claimed Rs.32,00,000/- as compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-Drvier of the RTC Bus filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that there is no negligence on his part and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased and the police have falsely implicated him in the case.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a counter on the similar lines as that of respondent No.1 and denying that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the claim made by the petitioners was exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

i) Whether on 29.12.2015 at about 17.00 hours at Motlapally village, Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal City & District, the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2812 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, resulting in death of the deceased Valusa Sammaiah?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate?

iii) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, the petitioners examined PW.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A17, and Exs.X1 and X2. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

9. After going through the entire evidence and considering the submissions of the counsel on both sides, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and made the respondents liable for payment of compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.14,92,500/- with future interest at 5.7% per annum.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appellant-RTC preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds that the compensation which was awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and that the petitioners did not prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and the learned Tribunal did not co