Apsrtc v. B.Yadagiri

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO C.M.A.No.252 of 2004 JUDGMENT:

The 2nd respondent-APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director among two respondents including its driver filed the present appeal against the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Santosh and the driver of the bus, by showing them as respondents 1 to 3 to the appeal in impugning the Order/ Award dated 23.09.2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P No.50 of 2001 for the claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act of Rs.4,00,000/- since the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,17,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum holding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver in dashing the scooter of the deceased.

2. Heard learned standing counsel for appellant and the counsel for the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 and taken as heard the respondent No.3 (bus driver) failed to appear despite service of notice and also remained ex part before the Tribunal. Perused the material available on record. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are that the Tribunal gravely erred in not considering the fact that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the Criminal case is even ended in acquittal covered by Ex.A3-judgment and thereby sought to set aside the award of the Tribunal exonerating the appellant-APSRTC by holding that the deceased fell down while lost balance to avert dashing against the road side luna and not from any fault of the bus much

less of the bus driver.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus of the appellant and the award of the Tribunal in fixing liability on the RTC with a finding that the accident was resulted from negligence of its driver is unsustainable, and whether the compensation and rate of interest is excessive and requires interference while sitting in appeal and with what observations?

2. To what result?

5.Point No.1:

The crime was registered against the bus driver from the report of eye witness. The accused-driver of the bus acquitted was by giving benefit of doubt and not with any finding of the bus is not involved or no negligence of bus driver. Thereby, it is not an advantage to the appellant-APSRTC with reference to Ex.A3-acquittal judgment. In fact the evidence on record clearly speaks including from the eye witness shown as LW.5 in the charge sheet examined herein as PW.2-B.Jangaiah, who categorically deposed that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Further, the involvement of the bus not even in dispute but for to say there is no fault of the bus driver and deceased to avert accident in hitting the road side stationed luna sustained injuries.

In fact, the conductor of the bus has also taken the injured along with the informant eye witness to the hospital that is not in dispute. The police filed charge sheet against the bus driver is also one of the circumstances coupled with bus driver did not even come to witness box and the evidence of PW.2 is sustaining to the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. It is not even the case of APSRTC that there was any contribution on the part of the deceased scooterist. In fact, the post mortem report shows multiple and grievous injuries external besides internal and there are no mechanical defects to the bus or bike as per MVI report.

negligent driving on the part of the bus driver, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere with that finding.

6. The deceased, as per post mortem report, was aged about 25 years, the earnings of the deceased claimed at Rs.2,500/- per month by placing reliance on Ex.A7-salary certificate and the prospective earnings also there from that to be taken. Leave about the same, even as per Latha Wadhwa vs State of Bihar the minimum income that has to be taken is at Rs.3,000/- per month. Having so taken and if half deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.1500/- per month and since the age of the mother of the deceased between 46-50, the multiplier applicable is '13'; then it comes to Rs.2,34,000/- (Rs.1500/- X 12 X 13). Apart from it, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate that can be awarded vide Rajesh vs Rajbir Singh. Thus, in all it comes to Rs.2,69,000/-. Thereby, what the Tribunal awarded of Rs.2,17,000/- is no way excessive but for no cross objections to enhance the compensation and but for to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum as per the settled expressions in TN Transport vs Raja Priya.

Point No.2

7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by confirming the compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventeen thousand only) and reduced the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization/ deposit with notice. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal holds good. No order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.

________________________ Dr.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

Date:6th March, 2015 knl THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

C.M.A.No.252 of 2004 Date:06.03.2015

knl