THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A No. 2586 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the respondent-APSRTC, challenging the order dated 05.12.2005 passed in O.P.No.616 of 2001 on the file of Chairman, MV Act-cum-
II Addl. District Judge, RR District, at LB Nagar, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the Tribunal.
The facts in issue are as under:
The claimants who are wife and sons of one Y. Bikshapathi @ Buchi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 03.04.2001. On the fateful day at about 5.30 PM, while the deceased was about to board a stationed bus, another bus bearing No. AP 10Z 3338 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came by the side of the stationed bus, dashed the deceased and dragged him to some distance. On hearing the cries raised by the public, the driver of the offending bus stopped the bus. The deceased got crushed in between the two buses. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital where the doctors declared him as dead. In respect of the above accident, a case in Crime No.82 of 2001 of Gopalapuram P.S., came to be registered. The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was working as Gang Master in South Central Railway. He was drawing a salary of Rs.7,800/- per month and used to spend entire amount on his family. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus, the claimants preferred the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- against the respondent-Corporation.
The respondent-Corporation filed their counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place. According to them, the driver of the bus was not at all responsible for the accident and it was only the deceased who was responsible for the accident. In any event, it is stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the accident took place on 3.4.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., at Rethifile Bus complex, Secunderabad, on account of the rash and negligence of the driver of the Bus bearing No.A.P.10Z 3338?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, for how much amount?
(iii) To what relief?
In support of the claim, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and also an eyewitness to the incident as PW2. She also got marked Exs.A1 to A9 in support of its case. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- to the claimants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-Corporation.
Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the deceased was responsible for the accident and as such the entire liability cannot be fastened on the Corporation. He did not dispute the salary and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
PW2, who was examined as an eye witness to the accident, in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination stated that on 3.4.2001 at about 4.00 P.M., he started from his house at Uppal to go to Ranigunj for purchase of electric motor spares. At about 5.30 P.M., when he was waiting at Rethifile bus stand, one person (deceased) was trying to board a stationed RTC Bus, another RTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 3338, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from backside and dashed the person who was trying to board the stationed bus. The said person was dragged to a certain distance. On hearing the cries of people, the bus stopped. The injured was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where the authorities declared him dead. Though PW2 was cross examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit his testimony. In fact, the oral evidence of PW2 gets ample corroboration from Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR. A perusal of Ex.A1 would show that one B. Anjaiah, the brother-in-law of the deceased gave report to the police on 3.4.2001 at 8.30 P.M. In the said report, he narrated the manner in which the accident took place. Basing on his report, a case in Crime No.82 of 2001 was registered and police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.1724 of 2001. Inquest report which is placed on record as Ex.A3 also describes the manner in which the accident took place. Ex.P5 the scene of offence panchanama also shows the place where the accident occurred and also the placement of buses in the bus stand. Thus, the evidence on record would establish that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the evidence of RW1 to show that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. His evidence is to the effect that the Rethifile bus complex is a busy complex with speed breakers erected at every ten feet. In view of the above, he deposes that the question of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner does not arise. During cross examination, RW1 admits that immediately after the accident he took the injured to the hospital and also informed the superiors on telephone about the accident. If actually RW1 was not negligent in his driving and that he was not responsible for the accident nothing prevented him from giving report to the police. In fact even the employer of RW1 did not make any effort to give report to the police. On the contrary, the evidence of PW2 coupled with Exs.A1, A2 and A3 would show that driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased also contributed to the accident cannot be accepted. Hence the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the RTC bus of the Corporation alone is responsible for the accident cannot be found fault with.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was working as gang master/keyman in South Central Railway. The said fact is not disputed even by the Corporation. Though no evidence has been adduced to show the age of the deceased, but the post mortem certificate reveal the age of the deceased as 50 years. As held by the Tribunal, neither the petitioners nor the respondent disputed the age of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 50 years. The salary certificate of the deceased, issued by Senior Section Engineer, which was produced on record as Ex.A7 would show that the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.7,754/-. Though the gross salary was shown as Rs.7,754/-, the Tribunal took the net salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. In the absence of any appeal filed by the claimants, the salary of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.4,500/- for calculating loss of dependency. If 1/3rd of the salary is deducted towards personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,000/- per month, which would come to Rs.36,000/- per annum. Applying multiplier 13, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from that, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.12,000/- under conventional heads which warrants no interference as no appeal is filed by the claimants.
Since the amount of compensation awarded is not challenged by the claimants and in view of the findings given above, I am of the opinion that the appeal lacks any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 26.08.2014 ksm