THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1093 OF 2006 Date: 10.07.2014 Between:
1. The Administrative Officer, APSRTC, RTC Cross Roads.
2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hayatnagar Depot, Rangareddy District. … Appellants And
1. Smt. Kanta Bai and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1093 OF 2006 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order/award dated 29.11.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No.1469 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.4,47,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the material available on record.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts in issue are as under:
The claimants who are the petitioners in the Original Petition are none other than the wife, four minor children and parents of one Appa Rao Gayakwad, who died in a road accident on 26.1.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. at Purani Haveli Main Road, Hyderabad. On the said day, while the deceased was returning home on his cycle from Darushifa towards Mandi Miralam and when he reached in front of Mir Hamid Ali General Stores, Purani Haveli main road, one RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 4601 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed dashed against the cycle. Consequently, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment, but on the way he died. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and working as Horse Riding Boy at Hyderabad Racing Club and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle, the claimants filed M.V.O.P. No.1469 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only).
The respondents denied the material averments in the petition and also the manner in which the accident took place. The respondents further denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place on 26.1.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 4601 by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
In support of the claim, the wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 & 3, apart from marking Exs.A1 to A9. Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1.
The Tribunal below, believing the evidence of P.W.3, which is corroborated by documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus. The Tribunal has also taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and twenty thousand only).
The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation is that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the evidence of P.W.3 since his name is not shown in the charge-sheet. The Tribunal below has correctly taken the income of the deceased.
According to P.W.3, on 26.1.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. after purchasing general items from the shop of Mir Hamid Ali General Stores at Purani Haveli he was proceeding towards Mandi Miralam and at that time he saw RTC bus dashed against the cycle of the deceased. He was cross-examined at length. He says after the accident he placed the deceased in an auto and went to his house. He further submitted that he was not examined by the Police.
On behalf of the Corporation, R.W.1 was examined. R.W.1 is the driver of the bus. R.W.1 did not specifically mention how the cycle came into contact with the bus. Admittedly police filed charge-sheet against R.W.1. Of course, according to R.W.1, criminal case ended with his acquittal.
Admittedly the accident occurred on the main road. Normally, several persons witness the accident when accident occurs on the main road. However, it is not necessary that all the persons who witnessed the accident should be examined by the police. Merely because the police have not examined P.W.3, it does not mean that the evidence of P.W.3 should be disbelieved. Moreover the evidence of R.W.1 is not convincing. It is not in dispute that the police filed charge-sheet against R.W.1.
In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are just and proper on appreciation of the evidence and there is no need to disturb the same.
As far as income and multiplier applied by the Tribunal are concerned, having regard to the age of the deceased, and he was working as Horse Riding Boy at Hyderabad Racing Club and having regard to the evidence of P.W.2, who engaged the deceased, I am of the view that there is no need to disturb the finding of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation.
Accordingly, I do not see any merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt 10.07.2014 gbs