HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3698 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.1387 of 1998 vide order dated 07-03-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Khammam, APSRTC preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are wife, daughter and parents of the deceased N. Srinivasa Rao, are claimants and respondent No.5 is driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 4844 involved in the accident. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 26-10-1998 at about 8-45 P.M. while the deceased along with A. Nageswara Rao was proceeding on the motor cycle of the deceased towards Julurupadu from Kothagudem, near Godumavagu bridge, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 4844 being driven by respondent No.5 in the opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.148 of 1998 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offences under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC by the Kothagudem One Town Police Station. It is the further case of the claimants that deceased was proprietor of Sridevi Engineering Works and was doing all types of job works of rolling shutters, foundry, grill and fabric works etc., and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The driver of the APSRTC bus remained ex parte and the APSRTC alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 4844? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? 3. To what relief?” 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-115 and also Ex.C-1. On behalf of the APSRTC, neither oral nor oral evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the claimants against the APSRTC with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved of the same, APSRTC preferred this appeal. 8. The appellant though preferred appeal contending that the compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive and questioning its liability for payment of the same, mainly contested only with regard to rate of interest. 9. In the circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and he was said to be earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum by running a mechanic work shop, as such, the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 11. Coming to the question of rate of interest, which is mainly contested by the appellant, Tribunal awarded rate of interest at 9% per annum and as per the latest legal position, it same can be reduced to 7.5% per annum and the same is accordingly reduced to 7.5% per annum. 12. With the above modification in rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 19, 2010. PV