THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1671 of 2009 Dated:- 08th March, 2011 Between:- A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND Chatla Renukamma @ Renuka and others. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1671 of 2009 ORDER:- The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad, filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.167 of 2005 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Nellore). 2. The appellant herein is the third respondent and the respondents herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 23.08.2004, deceased Parasuram was proceeding in an auto bearing registration No.AP 26 U 2180 towards Bangarupet and when the auto reached Siddagunta Rice Mill turning, a bus belonging to the third respondent – APSRTC (appellant herein), being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 4. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs.150/- per day and that the first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are minor daughters, 4th claimant is the father and the 5th claimant is the mother of the deceased. It is also their case that the first respondent is the owner of the auto and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the auto was insured on the date of the accident and the third respondent is the owner of the bus and all of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. The first respondent filed counter mainly contending that the driver of the auto had not driven the auto in rash and negligent manner and that if any compensation is ordered to be paid, the second respondent – Insurance Company, with which the auto was insured, is liable to indemnify to the first respondent. The second and the third respondent also filed counters and denied the material averments with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the sum and substance of their counters is that according to the first respondent, the driver of the auto was not responsible for the accident and according to the third respondent, the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication. 1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicles of the respondent Nos.1 and 3? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? IF so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant himself was examined as P.W.1, one Bandla Jayakrishna was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the auto – N.Srinivasulu was examined as R.W.1 besides marking Ex.B.1 – true copy of the Insurance policy. 8. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the third respondent and that the evidence of P.W.2 proves the same and that the third respondent has not examined its driver and failed to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Then, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and by applying multiplier 16, arrived at total loss of dependency at Rs.1,53,600/- and added Rs.15,000/- towards non- pecuniary damages and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent – APSRTC is before this Court as appellant. 9. The main contention of the appellant herein is that the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident had not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, but as a result of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto and that the award of the Tribunal is excessive. 10. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence and sustainable. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was proceeding in the auto towards Bangarupet on the date of accident. When the said auto reached Siddagunta Rice Mill turning, the bus belonging to the appellants herein dashed against the auto and there was collusion between both the vehicles. The claimants have examined P.W.2 – Bandla Jayakrishna, the driver of the auto, who had categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Ex.A.1 is the attested xerox copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.33 of 2004 of Balayapalli Police Station. Ex.A.2 is the attested xerox copy of inquest report. Ex.A.3 is the attested xerox copy of post- mortem certificate. Ex.A.4 is the attested xerox copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri. Ex.A.5 is the xerox copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report which reveals that the accident was not due to the mechanical defects of the vehicles involved in the accident. The contents of the above referred documents corroborate evidence of P.W.2. Thus, the evidence on record proves that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Admittedly, the driver of the bus was not examined. Taking a mere plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto will not come to the rescue of the appellants in the absence of any evidence to prove the same and admittedly, there is no evidence in support of such plea. In view of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. 12. Similarly, on the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month and has rightly applied the multiplier of 16, since the deceased was aged about 30 years on the date of accident. Also, there is no illegality or irregularity in determining the loss of dependency, awarding non-peculiar damages and compensation towards loss of consortium. In view of the same, I hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 08th March, 2011 Bvv/Tjmr