THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1623 OF 2002 The Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad V. Perumal and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.1623 of 2002. Oral Judgment: 1) This appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, challenging the award dated 6-2-2002 passed in OP No.226 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Chittoor. 2) The facts in brief are that the claimants’ son, Ramesh aged 28 years at the time of accident was proceeding on the left side of road on his cycle, towards his house and that the driver of the RTC Bus No. AP 10Z 4190 coming from Irala to Tirupati, dashed against him and that he sustained serious injuries and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chittoor, where he died. The police registered crime No.7/2000 against the driver of the RTC bus. Though the O.P. was filed claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, the claim was restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. 3) The appellant filed a written statement denying the allegations of the claimants. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the appellant R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 4) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that driver of the RTC bus drove it in rash and negligent manner and granted compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for the death of the deceased. Hence, this appeal by the appellant- Corporation. 5) Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition in view of the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B.1-order of acquittal of the driver of the bus in criminal case, and that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and needs interference. 6) Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 7) It is not in dispute that the decision rendered by the Criminal Court stands on different footing and has no bearing on the civil liability. There is no finding recorded by the criminal court that the RTC bus question is not involved in the accident on the other hand, it was held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the driver therein. It is in the evidence that P.W.2 was an eye witness to the accident and he deposed that the RTC bus came fast on right side and hit the deceased and went away without being stopped and same is consistent with the version made in Ex.A.1-FIR. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue at paras 8 and 9 of its judgment and came to the conclusion that the self serving evidence of R.W.1 does not inspire confidence and the judgment of the criminal court does not disprove the involvement of the bus or the driver; that there was positive evidence before the criminal court by the conductor of the bus that the R.W.1 was the driver of the bus and of P.W.2 about the identity of the bus, and what was primarily doubted by the criminal court was absence of proof of rash and negligent driving by R.W.1. Since the standard of proof required for criminal court is quite different to that of civil case, considering the evidence on record, and the dicta of the Supreme Court reported in PUSHPA BAI v. RANJIT G & P COMPANY ( (1) AIR 1977 SC 1735), with regard to the application of principle of res ipsa loquitur in a case of rash and negligent driving, I do not see any ground to interfere with the said findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 8 ) With regard to quantum of compensation, it is in the evidence that the deceased, who was the son of the claimants, was aged 34 years at the time of accident. Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that the deceased was working in a flour mill and being paid Rs.2000/- per month, which remained un-controverted, the Tribunal fixed Rs.1500/- per month as monthly income, and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, applied 9 multiplier, and quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.1,08,000/-. The Tribunal also granted Rs.4,500/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.7500/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering and loss of love and affection, in total granted Rs.1,20,000/-. Considering the entire evidence on record, I do not see any ground to reduce the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 9) In the result, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. No costs. GM, J Kk/24-6-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1623 of 2002 24-6-2010