THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 14.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.369 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 04.08.2017 at about 14:00 hours, while the deceased was standing near TVS Showroom, Bellampalli Chowrashta, Mancherial, the driver of an RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2532 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed him, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1/Driver of RTC Bus filed counter, denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. He further contended that he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the RTC bus and that the accident has not occurred due to his rash and negligence and further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.2/RTC has also filed counter, denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the petitioner himself was negligent in crossing the road and met with the accident.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving o the offending vehicle by respondent No.1?

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

3. To what relief ?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.17,22,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the RTC.

9. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

No representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no independent witness is examined in this case and that PW2 who is examined as an eye witness is not mentioned as such in the charge sheet. Therefore, he argued that the tribunal has simply believed the evidence of PW2 in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the RTC bus driver. He submitted that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road and died due to his sole negligence. Therefore, contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased. He further argued that the petitioners have not filed any proof of income of the deceased and that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very high as Rs.8,000/- per month. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the deceased was negligent in crossing the road and contributed to the accident?

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

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

4. To what relief?

12. Point No.1:-

a) The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, as he suddenly crossed the road without observing the traffic and that name of PW2 is not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet and therefore, his evidence is not reliable.

b) A perusal of the FIR/Ex.A1 and Charge Sheet/Ex.A2 reveals that the complaint is lodged against the driver of RTC Bus and charge sheet is also filed against him after thorough investigation by the Police. The recitals of charge sheet reveal