THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.182 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 07.08.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.342 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Mahabubnagar (for short “learned Tribunal”), wherein respondents/claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of her husband, namely Sri V.Yadakondaiah, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident on 04.05.2017.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2017 at about 7.40 hour, while the deceased proceeding towards new Town by walk and when he reached at Ambedkar Cross Road new bus stand, Mahabubnagar Town, the respondent No.1 who is driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2953 drove the said RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner without care and caution and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained injures all over the body and died on the spot. Police, Mahabubnagar, II- Town registered a case in crime No.95/2017 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing Mason work and also getting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by way of agriculture income, which he used to contribute to the welfare of the family.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that respondent No.2 is unaware of the relationship of the appellants/claimants with the deceased, the age, occupation and income of the deceased on the date of accident and further stated that due to negligence on the part of the deceased the accident had occurred and the compensation claimed was excessive.

6. After hearing both sides and going into the merits of the case and evaluating the entire evidences on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.8,57,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 preferred the present appeal.

7. The petitioners/claimants did not choose to prefer an appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal and accepted the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

8. The main grievance of the respondent No.2 is that the learned Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant compensation of Rs.8,57,500/- for the death of the deceased without considering the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, though the petitioners have not proved the negligence on the part of the RTC driver of the Crime vehicle. The relationship between the deceased and the petitioner has also not proved. Though the petitioners have not placed any evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded total compensation of Rs.

Rs.8,57,500/- with cost and interest at the rate of 6% per annum which is excessive.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that that learned Tribunal has not consider the negligence on the part of the deceased while he was walking on the road, without following the traffic signal, inspite of the same, the learned Tribunal has held that respondent No.1 alone is responsible for the said accident and further there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased except oral evidence, nothing has been placed by the petitioners to prove that there was no c