In motor accident compensation claims, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities; for deceased persons aged under forty in temporary or self-employment, future prospects are limited to forty percent, and interest rates are subject to judicial discretion, typically standardized at 7.5% per annum.

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2018 filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2018 filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation assailing the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 30.10.2017 vide M.V.O.P.No.1922 of 2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of K.Santosh Kumar (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the deceased”), who is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.06.2015. It is stated that on the day, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Bhongir towards Hyderabad slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Katamaiah Temple on NH-163, Bibinagar, at that time TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0045 of Suryapet Depot came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The motorcycle was also damaged. The Police, Bibinagar registered a case vide Crime No.91 of 2015 under Section 304(A) IPC. The petitioners/claimants are the mother and sister of the deceased. Since the accident occurred due to negligent act of the offending bus, which belongs to respondents, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 contested the claim by filing counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and disputing the age, occupation and manner of the accident. It is also further stated that when the bus reached near flyover bridge, one auto trolley with fire wood, came with high speed in the same direction and tried to overtake the bus; in the meantime, one motorcycle rider has tried to overtake from the gap of auto trolley and the bus; the bus driver observed the same in the mirror and taken the bus to left side; the driver of the motorcycle lost control and hit the auto trolley and fell on the road and sustained injuries. It is submitted that as per the report and enquiry it was found that the auto trolley left the scene, but the bus driver and every passenger witnessed that it was the mistake of the motorcycle and auto trolley and at no point of time the motorcycle or auto trolley came in contact with the bus. Hence, it is alleged that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0045. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the respondents and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the claimants by awarding compensation of Rs.10,97,000/- with 9% interest per annum to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred MACMA No.1221/2018 questioning the quantum of compensati