IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2553 OF 2008 Between:- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director-cum-Vice Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d Gottipati Rutu @ Rutamma and 5 others …Respondents A N D CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.2196 OF 2009 Between:- Gottipati Rutu @ Rutamma and 5 others …Appellants A n d Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director-cum-Vice Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2553 OF 2008 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.2196 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal and cross-objections are directed against the award dated 16-06-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.447 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole (for the short ‘the tribunal’) wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 6 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.6,87,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Arguments of both sides in appeal and cross-objections are heard. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 6 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Gottipati Adam, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-09-2006. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased through the first wife. The 4th claimant is the second wife and claimants 5 and 6 are the sons born through the second wife of the deceased. According to them, on the date of accident, the deceased was returning from Ongole to Martur in the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9078 plying between Nellore and Hyderabad and while the deceased was waiting inside the bus to get down at vegetable market centre at Martur, the driver applied sudden brakes due to the rash and negligent driving, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital Chilakaluripet, where he succumbed to injuries. A case in Cr.No.151/2006 of Martur P.S was registered against the driver of the bus. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 46 years and was working as watchman in Government Junior College, Martur. 4. The appellant herein filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus? (ii) What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant- RTC. 7 . On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,59,000/- and apportioned the liability agianst the APSRTC at 80% thereof and awarded compensation of Rs.6,87,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred the present appeal. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed cross-objections SR.No.2196 of 2009. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant- APSRTC would contend that the tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability equally among the driver of the bus and the deceased, as the deceased made an attempt to get down from the bus at a place where there was no stop or stage. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants- cross objectors would contend that deduction of the compensation by 20% holding that the deceased had also contributed to the accident by his negligence, is unwarranted. 10. It is not disputed that the deceased was travelling in APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9078 at the time of the accident. The death of the deceased resulted from the accident, which occurred on account of applying sudden brakes by the driver of the bus. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was about to get down from the moving bus. Admittedly, the bus was a long distance bus plying between Nellore and Hyderabad. When there was no stop or stage at the place of accident near the vegetable market centre, Martur, there was no reason why the door was kept open by the conductor. The fact that the door was kept open cannot be disputed, as the deceased fell down on to the road from inside the bus through the door. If only the conductor had kept the door tightly shut, the accident would not have occurred at all. The conductor and driver ought to have prevented the deceased from getting down where there was no stop or stage. The driver by applying brakes and the conductor by keeping the door open facilitated the deceased to get down from the bus. Because the driver applied sudden brakes, the deceased was thrown out of the bus and he fell and sustained injuries to which he later succumbed. If only the driver and conductor were careful and cautious and discharged their duties properly, the accident would not have occurred at all. However, in view of the fact that the deceased ought not to have made any attempt to get down at a place where there was no stop or stage and at that place he was standing at the door to get down from the bus, the tribunal has thought it fit to fasten a portion of the liability on the deceased also. The apportionment of the liability among the diver of the bus and the deceased at 80% and 20% respectively, as done by the tribunal in the impugned order, is held to be just and reasonable and does not, therefore, call for any interference. 11. The inquest report-Ex.A-2 and the post- mortem report-Ex.A-3 would show that the deceased was aged 46 years. It is not disputed that he was working as watchman in Government Junior Collector, Martur and was earning a gross salary of Rs.8,952/- and net salary of Rs.7,975/-, as seen from Ex.A-7 salary certificate. After deducting 1/3rd from out of the net salary and applying the multiplier ‘13’ which is suitable to the age of the deceased, the tribunal arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.8,29,452/- and by adding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate ad Rs.14,548/- towards loss of consortium, the tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.8,59,000/- and towards 80% liability thereof, passed the award against the appellant for a sum of Rs.6,87,200/- with interest at 7.5.% per annum. The said compensation awarded by the tribunal is considered to be just and reasonable and there are no valid or sufficient grounds to enhance the same, as sought by the claimants. 12. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award does not call for any interference. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and cross-objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th July, 2010. Lrkm.