HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1958 OF 2001 Dated: 11.03.2010 BETWEEN: APSRTC and another .. Appellants And Vengala Lakshmi and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1958 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. challenging the award dated 18.05.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in M.O.P.No.1155 of 1998. 2. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of the deceased Kanakaraju, died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.05.1997. He was knocked down by the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7036 while he was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 31 G 8277. 3. After making enquiry into the claim, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,66,360/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, it held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the RTC bus and apportioned the liability @ 25% and 75% respectively. 4. The present appeal is filed by the APSRTC challenging the finding of the Tribunal apportioning the liability as 75% and 25% and also quantum of compensation on the ground that the award is on higher side. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. PW2 who is an eyewitness examined on behalf of the claimant stated in his evidence before the Tribunal that he witnessed the incident while he was proceeding on cycle from Boyapalem to Krishnapuram and according to his evidence the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus, who drove it at high speed. Though, he admitted in his cross-examination that two vehicles cannot pass through bridge at the same time. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place on account of the deceased over taking the RTC bus with his scooter. RW1 and RW2 who were examined on behalf of the appellant-corporation, in fact, did not witness the actual occurrence of the accident. However, considering the entire evidence on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the vehicles cannot pass through the bridge simultaneously and somehow fastened the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and estimated his contribution at 25%. The said finding is recorded basing on the evidence adduced before it and also considering the fact that the appellant corporation did not even examine its driver to explain the circumstances under which the accident had taken place. The finding of the learned Tribunal being based on evidence cannot be set aside in this appeal, more particularly, when the Tribunal had categorically held that RWs.1 and 2 did not witness the actual occurrence of the accident. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation and the objection taken by the corporation that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1800/-, per month, it may be stated that the age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of accident and the income was fixed by the learned Tribunal basing on the minimum wage available at the relevant point of time and the same is just and reasonable and it does not require any consideration in this appeal. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal, therefore, fails and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.03.2010 kvrm