THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1168 of 2005 4th June, 2010 Between :- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corportation, rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant And Kommineni Sesha Kumari & others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1168 of 2005 JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant and Mr.Srinivas representing Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondents. 2. Sri Satyanarayana Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) grossly erred in fixing the liability on the driver of the bus whereas the accident occurred between the two vehicles and as such there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal grossly erred in believing the evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than the friend of the deceased and disbelieving the evidence of R.W.1 – the driver of the bus. The Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal grossly erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month and the same is excessive. The learned standing Counsel also would further point out that the multiplier applied is not correct. Ultimately, the learned Standing Counsel would maintain that in the light of the same, the M.A.C.M.A. to be allowed. 3. On the contrary, Mr.Srinivas representing Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Tribunal and would maintain that inasmuch as the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and also R.W.1, Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3, Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 as well in proper perspective, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 4. Heard the Counsel. 5. In the light of the submissions made, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A.:- 1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) To what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 6. Point No.1:- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in M.V.O.P.No.734/2002 on the file of the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience. The petitioners-claimants filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in view of death of Kommineni Sambasiva Rao in a motor accident. 7. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the deceased and the said deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. It is also stated that on 13- 5-2002 while the deceased and his friend Ravindrababu who was riding the motor cycle were coming from Donmabanda to Ibrahimpatnam side on N.H.9 road with a slow and cautious manner on the left side of the road margin, the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-10Z-3133 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle bearing No.AP-7C-678. As a result, the rider of the motor cycle and pillion ride the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, which was witnessed by many others, and that the deceased was taken to Charitasri Hospital, where he died while undergoing treatment and immediately it was informed to the Police and they registered the case. It is also stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy by the date of death and further he was carrying on Poultry business since 1995 with ample experience and used to earn about Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the petitioners’ financial position and the business activities become hampered. 8. The respondent denied the allegations and had taken the plea of contributory negligence as well. 9. On the strength of these pleadings, the following Issues were settled :- 1) Whether the deceased Kommineni Sambasiva Rao died in a motor vehicle accident on 13-5-2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP-10-Z- 3133? 2) Whether is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom? 4) To what relief? 10. The 2nd petitioner was examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 also were examined. Ex.A.1 – F.I.R.; Ex.A.2 – MVI Report; Ex.A.3 – P.M.Report; Ex.A.4 – Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Ex.A.5 – Bunch of Medical Bills also had been marked. R.W.1 – the driver of the RTC bus also was examined. P.W.1 is not an eye- witness to the accident. P.W.2 stated in the sworn affidavit that while he was proceeding towards Ibrahimpatnam to go to Electricity Office for paying electricity bill, at about 9.40 a.m., he had seen two persons going on Bajaj Kawasaki Motor Cycle towards Ibrahimpatnam and at that time one RTC Bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-3138 came in opposite direction and the driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said Bajaj Kawasai motor cycle and as a result the persons going on the motor cycle were injured and fell down on the road and he had taken both of them in Auto, admitted them in Charitasri Hospital and the deceased was one among them who died at about 2.00 p.m., on 13-5-2002. This witness deposed in his cross- examination that he does not have either relationship or friendship with the claimants. He denied the suggestions. Thus the evidence of P.W.2 had been appreciated. Apart from the evidence of P.W.2, the evidence of P.W.3 also had been taken into consideration. As against this evidence, the evidence of R.W.1 also had been appreciated but however the evidence of R.W.1 was disbelieved on the ground that he was giving false evidence. The Tribunal also recorded reasons in detail while answering issue No.2 at paras 8, 9 and 10 and further recorded reasons at paras 11 and 12 while answering issue No.3. Ultimately the claim petition was allowed in part directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,35,400/- to the claimants towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No doubt, certain further clarificated directions also had been given. 11. This Court had carefully gone through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal and this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference with the said findings and hence the said findings are hereby confirmed. 12. Point No.2:- In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 4th June, 2010 smr