HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1664 OF 2001 Dated: 27.04.2010 BETWEEN: The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rep.by its General Manager .. Appellant And K.Vasantha and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1664 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the APSRTC challenging the order, dated 30.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 1999. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation. None appears for the respondents, though served with notices. 3. In this appeal, the appellant corporation challenges the award passed by the learned Tribunal on various grounds, such as, the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 906, that the appeal is bad for non-joinder of parties i.e. the owner and insurance company of the other vehicle and also that the quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. 4. The accident occurred on 12.12.1998 at about 3.30PM wherein one Gnanaiah, driver of a tractor died instantaneously. According to the claimants, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 906. 5. To prove the factum of accident, the claimants examined PW.2, an independent witness and PW.3, the owner of the vehicle. Both claimed to have witnessed the accident. PW.2 stated in his evidence that the deceased Gnanaiah stopped the tractor on the road side by observing the vehicles coming on the road, but the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from behind and dashed the tractor, on account of which the tractor fell in the culvert, over which the bus was mounted and Gnanaiah died on the spot. PW.3 also stated in his deposition that he is the employer of the deceased and also witnessed the incident. According to him, the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus as stated by PW.2. Both PWs.2 and 3 were cited as witnesses by the police in the charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the RTC bus. Though, the conductor of the bus examined as RW1, stated in his evidence that the tractor driver was negligent, the learned Tribunal disbelieved his evidence due to his inconsistent versions and failure to give typographical features of the place of occurrence. Further in my view the manner in which the accident was said to have taken place also clearly indicates that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and I see no grounds to take a different view than which was taken by the learned Tribunal. 6. The next question requires consideration is whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. According to the claimants, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and the deceased, who was driver of the tractor was not at all responsible for the accident. Therefore, it is not obligatory on the part of the claimants to implead the owner and the insurance company relating to the tractor as respondents to the claim petition and as such it cannot be said that the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, admittedly, the deceased Gnanaiah was driver of the tractor and was employed by PW3. He was aged 30 years on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.1500/-per month even lesser than what is stated by PW.3, the employer of the deceased. According to PW.3 the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.2500/- per month. Therefore, the income which was taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal is reasonable. The learned Tribunal also rightly applied the multiplier 18 as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act relevant to the age of the deceased which is 30 years for computing the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.2,53,000/- as compensation which is just and reasonable, and the same requires no interference in this appeal. However, the interest granted by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 8. With the above reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 27.04.2010 kvrm