THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.NO.3045 OF 2003 JUDGMENT Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 27-03- 2003 passed in M.V.O.P. No.1117 of 1998, by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Armoor Depot, preferred this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 22-06-1998, at about 3-30 p.m., Nandkishore, who was the deceased, was proceeding on TVS Suzuki motorcycle to go to Bazar Kothur Village and when he reached Nandipet village sivar, he noticed one RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 275 stationed near the culvert. The deceased stopped the motorcycle, but the driver of the RTC bus drove the bus in the reverse direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous and crush injuries and thereafter succumbed to injuries. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of RW1 and the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident was due to contributory negligence of both RW1 and deceased in the case on hand and that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Now the point for consideration is - whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side or not? A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that PW1, who is father of the deceased, narrated the mode of accident. PW2, who is stated to be an eyewitness, narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, the deceased had stationed his TVS Suzuki motorcycle near the culvert behind the RTC bus and the driver of the offending bus had taken reverse direction and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without noticing the deceased, and dashed against him, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. To rebut the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1. He was charge sheeted in Cr.No.98 of 1998. According to him, the deceased had not taken proper care before averting the accident. The case filed against R-1 ended in acquittal. The fact remains that police filed charge sheet after due investigation and concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of RW1. In the impugned order, the learned Judge clearly observed that the respondent did not examine the Conductor or any other passengers to prove that the deceased himself dashed the stationed bus and that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus i.e., RW1. From the circumstances and the recitals in Ex.A2-charge sheet, it is proved that the accident occurred purely on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In the said circumstances, there is no tangible evidence to connect the deceased that he was responsible for the accident. Hence, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the deceased was responsible for the accident and accordingly, there was contributory negligence on his part. Hence, I see no grounds to set aside the finding of the Tribunal on that score. Insofar as granting of interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the latest dictums of the Apex Court, granting of compensation @ 7% from the date of petition till realization is just and proper. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Rkk Dated: 10-2-2011