HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1891 OF 2001 Dated: 01.04.2010 BETWEEN: The APSRTC rep.by its MD .. Appellant And Yandapalli Srinivasa Rao and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1891 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the APSRTC challenging the award dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in O.P.No.35 of 1998. 2. Challenge to the award by the appellant corporation is to the finding of the learned Tribunal which held that the accident occurred solely on the ground of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5860 and also regarding quantum of compensation on the ground that it is excessive. 3. I have heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation and none appears for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that admittedly the accident took place while the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP9Z 5860 was proceeding, the jeep dashed the bus while coming in the opposite direction and apart from the evidence of PW.2, which is to the effect that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus there is no other evidence. It is also in the evidence of RW1, the conductor of the bus that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The learned Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep also and therefore, the liability should be fixed on both the vehicles. He would further submit that regarding the proof of the age of the mother of the deceased, nothing was brought on record by the claimants, therefore, the Tribunal erred in considering the age of the mother of the deceased as 45 years for the purpose of computing compensation. 5. PW.2, an independent witness, who was traveling along with the deceased in the jeep had categorically stated in his deposition that while he and the deceased and others were traveling in the jeep from Karampudi to Guntur, the RTC bus came in the opposite direction at fast speed driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, on account of which, the deceased received severe injuries, and was admitted in Government Hospital, Guntur and after the accident, he succumbed to the injuries. According to him, the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the jeep. PW.2 is the person, who lodged the report with the police about the accident. 6. However, there is also evidence of RW1-conductor of the bus to the effect that when the RTC bus was crossing near Tirumala Cold Storage, a lorry crossed the bus, thereafter the jeep came and dashed the bus as a result, the driver of the bus fell on the bonnet. This witness however, admitted in the cross examination that the driver of the RTC bus was suspended in connection with the accident. The learned Tribunal, apart from the evidence of PW.2, also took in to consideration the contents in Exs.A.1 to A3 which are to the effect that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the driver of the RTC bus is responsible for the accident. PW.2 is an independent witness, whereas RW.1 is conductor of the respondent corporation, it is not possible for RW.1 to speak against the wishes of his superiors working in the corporation. Whereas, it is not obligatory on the part of PW.2 to give evidence on behalf of the claimants. Further the manner in which the accident said to have been taken place also indicates that there was rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is based on evidence before it and also considering the facts and circumstances which resulted in the accident. The finding of the learned Tribunal being inconformity with the evidence before it and in accordance with law, this Court is not supposed to substitute its opinion to that of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in this Court’s view has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PW.2 ann its finding which also the result of considering Exs.A.1 to A.3 documents cannot be, upset in this appeal. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation is that there is no material before the Tribunal to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month. It is also his contention that no document was placed by the claimants in proof of the age of the mother of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered her age as 45 years. I absolutely see no force in the contention of the learned counsel. 8. It is the version of the claimants that the deceased was aged 25 years on the date of accident and he was privately studying MBA, and was working as private electrician and getting Rs.3500/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month for the purpose of computing compensation. The amount being reasonable and it can be said to be minimum income which an able bodied individual, aged 25 years could get in the year 1997. This apart, the appellant corporation did not raise any dispute regarding the age of the second petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased mentioned in the claim petition. Now it is not open for the appellant corporation to contend that the age of the second petitioner was not correctly considered by the learned Tribunal. With regard to the death of the deceased, whose age was 25 years, the Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, which is certainly, not on higher side and needs no interference. However, the rate of interest at 12% per annum being on higher side, it is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 01.04.2010 Kvrm