IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2781 of 2000 Between: APSRTC., rep. By its General Manager, Hyderabad. …… Appellant AND Vallepu Chinnamma and others ......Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award dated 05.06.2000 in O.P.No.37 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Nellore. The claimants who are the mother, wife and unmarried sister of the deceased filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation, on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was said to be working as cleaner in the lorry of S.R.K.L.T. Transport, Nellore and was earning Rs.800/- per month. Under various heads the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Tribunal, ultimately, granted an amount of Rs.1,29,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent-APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Challenging the award as to the liability of the appellant-APSRTC to pay compensation as well as the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is highly excessive. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Point No.1: While the R.T.C. bus was on the way from Kakutur to Nellore, being driven by it’s driver K.Mastan Reddy (RW-1), the auto bearing No. A.P.26-T.7918 was found coming in the opposite direction at high speed on the right side of the road. On seeing the auto, the bus driver stopped the bus, the auto driver who was unable to control the speed dashed the front portion of the bus on the right side and therefore the accident was caused solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and the Tribunal went wrong fastening the liability on the appellant-APSRTC. On the other hand, the contention of the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company with which the auto bearing No.A.P.26-T.7918 was insured at relevant time, was that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. The contention of the claimants is also the same and it was accepted by the learned Tribunal. The appellant-APSRTC examined it’s driver K.Mastan Reddy as RW-1 and he deposed in tune with the contention of the appellant which is to the effect that he stopped the bus on seeing the auto coming in the opposite direction at high speed and that auto dashed the bus which was in a stationary position. However, the claimants examined PW-3 who is none other than the cousin of the deceased who was travelling in the auto along with the deceased at that time. He had categorically stated in his evidence before the Tribunal that the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turned turtle and that in the said accident the deceased died, as a result of the injuries received by him. PW3 is the person who lodged the first information report. He gave the same version in the first information report, which was lodged at the earliest point of time when the proceedings in question were not at all contemplated. Further, he is an independent witness, whereas the testimony of RW-1 is self-serving. The Tribunal also rightly did not give any weight to Ex.B2 enquiry report, relating to the departmental enquiry conducted by the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. against Rw-1 wherein he was examined. The said report cannot out weigh the testimony of PW3. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the learned Tribunal in holding that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AEZ.6059 by it’s driver RW-1. Thus, point No.1 is answered against the appellant. Point No.2: As regards the quantum of compensation, it is true that as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C., there is no documentary evidence adduced by the claimants in proof of the income of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal for the purpose of granting compensation, notionally fixed income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month. Basing on the said income, and age of the deceased, the Tribunal granted compensation. Even if, the deceased was considered to be a labourer, the income fixed by the learned Tribunal is not on higher side and as such, the said aspect does not require any interference in this appeal. Thus, granting compensation of Rs.1,29,500/- by the learned Tribunal to the claimants, is just and reasonable. The same is affirmed in this appeal and this point is also answered against the appellant. However, as regards the interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, it being on higher side and also keeping in view the fact that the claim petition was filed in the year 1997, the interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above modification in the rate of interest, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) September 24, 2009. ivd