THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3575 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) against the order dated 07.05.2002 in O.P.No.1055 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Nizamabad whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- was awarded as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: On 17.6.1996, one Nalla parkas Reddy was driving a Maruthi Car bearing No.AIS 1476 belonging to the respondent-claimant to go to Nizamabad from Hyderabad: that when it reached Kalvaral village on NH 7 at about 10.00 a.m., an APSRTC bus bearing No. 9Z 6638 came in the opposite direction at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the Maruthi Car causing instantaneous death of the driver thereof and damaged the car to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Sadashivnagar P.S. registered a case in Crime No.73/96. Therefore, the respondent-claimant filed a claim petition claiming Rs.2,00,000/- with 24% interest from the appellants. 3. The respondent-claimant got himself examined as PW.1 besides examining Surveyor as PW.2 and PW.3 as an eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence mainly basing on the evidence of eye witness, who was examined as PW.3 and PW.2- surveyor, who assessed the damage caused to Maruthi car under Ex.A.2 issued by him, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- with 9% interest per annum towards damage caused to the Maruthi Car belonging to the respondent-claimant. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant-APSRTC. None appears for the respondent and on previous occasions i.e. on 17.06.2010 and 23.07.2010 also none appeared for the respondent. 6. It is contended on behalf of APSRTC that the lower Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus; that the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was held due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car, inasmuch as the deceased drove the car in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and tried to overtake an ambassador car in the same direction and came to wrong side and dashed against the bus coming in the opposite direction slowly on its extreme left side. However, PW.3 who was examined as eye witness to the accident in clear terms stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. He further denied that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Maruthi car. It is to be found in the evidence that at the time of the accident, the bus was proceeding towards Kamareddy from Nizamabad and the Maruthi car was proceeding towards Nizamabad from Kamareddy and he was following the Maruthi car on his two wheeler. Therefore, one can visualise that in such a situation, he is a proper person and his evidence is appropriate in deciding the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. He points out accusing finger towards the driver of the APSRTC bus. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered his evidence in deciding the first issue as to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles against the driver of the APSRTC bus. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant-APSRTC that in case of head on collision between the bus and the car, the drivers of both the vehicles should have held equally responsible. However, having regard to the evidence of eye witness-PW.3, it cannot be said that it is a head on collision between the APSRTC bus and the Maruthi car. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-APSRTC that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on Ex.A7- xerox copy of R.C.book in respect of Maruthi Car in deciding the ownership thereof. No doubt, the Tribunal ought to have called for the original R.C. book, but it appears that has not been done for unknown reasons. May be that in the absence thereof, the lower Tribunal relied on xerox copy of the R.C. book. In certain circumstances, such exhibits may be relied on in the absence of original document treating it as secondary evidence and finding to that effect has already been given. In the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in doing so. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant-APSRTC that PW.2 is a private surveyor having been engaged by the respondent-claimant and that Ex.A.2 survey report given by him is one sided; that though Maruthi car was stated to be of 1986 make, the price thereof was stated to be Rs.2,25,000/- on the date of survey; that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the evidence of PW.2 or Ex.A2 either, since it is not known as to when or at what point of time, the respondent-claimant purchased the said vehicle. Even if he had purchased the vehicle in the year 1986, the price shown in Ex.A.2 is quite at higher side. Moreover, by showing the depreciation year-wise the value thereof could have been brought down to a minimum which would have been negligible by the date of the accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not give any indication as to the basis for arriving at the scrap value of the vehicle as well as the value thereof at the time of the accident. In any case, the assessment of the value of the damage caused to the Maruthi car at Rs.1,20,000/- is at higher side and the same is liable to be reduced reasonably, so also the interest which is granted at 9% per annum. However, it has to be seen that PW.2 is a licenced surveyor. On 5.7.1996 he conducted the survey of Maruthi car bearing No.AIS 1476 at Satish Auto Works, Nizamabad. PW.2 in Ex.A.2- motor survey report, has specifically mentioned that the cost of the similar Maruthi car model and make is at Rs.1,20,000/-, by deducting the 50% depreciation since the vehicle was 10 years old by then. Further, PW.2 valued the scrap at Rs.8,000/- by taking into consideration the overall damage caused to the vehicle. 7. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not, in any way, warrant interference from this court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 06-08-2010 Stp