IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.644 of 2006 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj Depot, Having its office at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. ..... Appellant AND 1 Smt.Ganji Sharada @ Nirmala Shayamala and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSRTC Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri R.Chandrasekhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.4: None appeared. The Court made the following : Judgment: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award, dated 14th September, 2005, in MVOP.No.215 of 2000, whereby the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), allowed the claim of the respondents and fixed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-for the death of the deceased. I have heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, and Sri R.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3, by name Siva Shankar, who was aged 51 years, died in the accident involving the bus bearing registration No.AEZ 5918 of the appellant- Corporation. The accident took place on 09-07-2000. Immediately, a criminal case was registered against respondent No.4, the driver of the vehicle. The deceased, at the time of the death, was working as fitter in M/s.Manjula Structural Works, Musheerabad, and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant- Corporation. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Having regard to the documentary evidence placed on behalf of the claimants, the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as salary, and has, accordingly, quantified the compensation at Rs.3,50,000/-. At the hearing, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, confined his submissions to the finding of the Tribunal regarding the cause of accident. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the deceased has also contributed to the accident, and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in not deducting the compensation by apportioning a part of it towards the contributory negligence of the deceased. Having carefully considered this submission, I find myself unable to accept the same. P.W.3 is the eyewitness to the accident. According to him, the deceased, along with him and his other friends, was chitchatting at Jubilee Hills bus stand. He deposed that the deceased was seated on the moped, when the bus driven by respondent No.4 stopped at the bus stop, and that while leaving the bus stop, respondent No.4 has moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner hitting the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. The appellant-Corporation has not adduced any evidence, whatsoever, either oral or documentary. A specific stand was taken on behalf of the claimants that respondent No.4 was convicted in the criminal case for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Except mentioning that the claimants have not filed proof of conviction of respondent No.4, the appellant-Corporation has not come out with its version as to the said plea of conviction put forth by the claimants. Respondent No.4 being its employee, the appellant-Corporation cannot feign ignorance of the outcome of the criminal case. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that respondent No.4 would have been convicted by the criminal Court for his rash and negligent driving. Even otherwise, in the absence of any evidence adduced by it, the appellant-Corporation cannot claim contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award under appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 15th February, 2010 lur