THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/R.T.C. against the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.541 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’), wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,52,800/- as against the claim of the claimants at Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants filed the above claim-petition for grant of compensation of RS.15,00,000/- for the death of one Kilari Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.02.2012. It is stated that on 26.02.2012, while the deceased was crossing the R & B road, the driver of the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2902 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries on the vital organs of the body and died on the spot. Basing on a complaint, the Police, Kodada Town, registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2012 against the driver of the RTC bus, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month as Tanker Driver and on account of the death of deceased, the claimants , who have depended on the income of the deceased, have lost their source of income. Hence, they filed the claim- petition against the respondent, who, being the owner of the said R.T.C. bus is liable to pay the compensation.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is specifically denied that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. It is further contended that the claimants are not entitled to the interest as claimed in the claim-petition since the claim-petition was filed five years after the accident.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased Kilari Nagaraju died on 26.02.2012 while proceeding on R & B Road near Krishna Priya Talkies at Kodad Town due to hitting of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 902 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner?

2. Whether the claim-petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was produced.

7. After considering the contents of the claim-petition, counter filed by the respondent and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and allowed the M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-

along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization payable by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the Road Transport Corporation filed the present appeal on the following grounds:-

(i) that the learned Tribunal without considering the fact that there is a negligence on the part of the deceased himself as he crossed the road from right side to left side without observing the traffic on the road and also jumped the ra