IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2878 of 2002 Between: Sukuru Nayak and 3 others ..... APPELLANTS AND M/s.Sri Sai Travels, rep.by N.Jagan Mohan Rao, and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2878 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Officer, Basheerbagh is the appellant. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein filed O.P.921/2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of death of one Ramulunaik in a motor accident. The 4th respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing bus No.AP09W-823 which was hired to the APSRTC. The APSRTC is the 6th respondent herein. The said vehicle is covered by insurance with the appellant. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal below. It is the case of the claimants that claimants Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Ramulunaik and claimants Nos.3 and 4 are the sister and brother of the deceased. On 17.06.2000 at 9.15 p.m. when the deceased Ramulunaik was crossing the road at Santosh 70 mm Cinema Theatre, Abids, Hyderabad the bus bearing No.AP9W-823 belonging to Sri Sai Travels which was hired with APSRTC came in high speed from Abids to Basheerbagh and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. During course of treatment, he was expired on the next day i.e. on 18/19.06.2000 at 2 a.m. The deceased was aged about 26 years, he was working as Mason and he was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioners are entirely depending on the income of the deceased as he was sole earning member of the family. The owner of the vehicle as well as the hirer i.e. Respondents 1 and 3 in the O.P. remained ex parte and the Insurance Company alone contested the matter. The Insurance Company filed a counter disputing the accident and the earnings of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants. It is stated that the deceased himself was at fault for the cause of the accident, the insurer and owner never reported to the Insurance Company about the said accident and the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Though the APSRTC filed a counter denying all the allegations, did not dispute about the hiring of the vehicle. It is stated that as per the agreement the owner of the bus alone is liable to pay the compensation in case any accident was occurred, and therefore, the APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that according to Ex.A1 FIR the complaint was given by the deceased person himself on 17.06.2000 stating that he is living by begging and on 17.06.2000 at 9.15 p.m. when he came to Abids to watch movie in Santhosh 70 mm cinema theatre and while crossing the road, opposite to Santhosh 70 MM theatre, the bus hired by APSRTC bearing No.AP9W-823 came suddenly and he fell down under the back tyre of the bus and the back wheels ran over his right hand. He received a bleeding injury over his right hand and on the back near spinal card. In the meanwhile police came and shifted him to Osmania General Hospital. A charge sheet was also filed under Ex.A5. According to the charge sheet, the police conducted investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses, and their investigation discloses that the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly recorded a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the father of the deceased, aged 60 years, was examined as PW 1 and he stated that the deceased was working as Mason and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he was unmarried. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the deceased was a beggar. He stated that he has not filed any document to prove the income of the deceased. PW 2 is the eyewitness of the incident. PW 3 stated that he is a Mastry, and the deceased was also working as Mastry along with him and used to get Rs.100/- per day. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not a Mastry. No doubt, as per Ex.A1 FIR, the deceased himself stated that he is a beggar. Even assuming that he is a beggar it cannot be said that beggar has no income. In a centrally located junction i.e. at Abids, a beggar would get good income. The Tribunal below has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards persons expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family was taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. Even according to the Second Schedule, the income of a non-earning person can be taken into account as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the estimated income of Rs.2,000/- per month was not excessive. I am unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below at Rs.1,84,320/-is excessive. The appeal is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 15.07.2010 Dsr