THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.2176 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) against the order dated 03.10.2006 in O.P. No. 733 of 2004 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum- the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, at Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the respondents- claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-. 2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged about 19 years, carrying on business of purchasing garments from wholesale shop and selling to retailers and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. On 04.01.2004, deceased was going from Hyderabad to Jahangeerpeer Dargha as pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.AHW 859. When deceased reached near Rangapur village, an RTC bus bearing No. AP IIZ 2717 came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from the opposite direction, resultantly, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. He died on the same day while undergoing treatment. Police, Kothur registered a case in Crime No.2/04 under Section 304-A IPC against the APSRTC bus driver. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. Respondents who are the owners of the bus are vicariously liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants who are legal heirs of the deceased. 3. The APSRTC filed a counter stating that the bus was proceeding from Jahangeerpeer Dargah towards Afzalgunj. Near Rangapur village, one motorcyclist with two pillion riders was coming in opposite direction. After overtaking a van, on observing the bus coming in opposite direction, the motorcyclist got confused, lost his balance and fell down on the road. The driver of the bus having observed motorcycle coming in opposite direction, while overtaking the van, has taken bus to extreme left side of the road. The bus did not touch the motorcycle or motorcyclist. The motorcyclist lost balance, skidded, fell down and sustained injuries. Thus the accident took place not due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The claimants are put to strict proof regarding, age, income and occupation of the deceased and their relationship with the deceased at the time of accident. The driver of the motorcycle is necessary party to the petition. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident caused death of deceased that took place on 04.01.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP IIZ 2717 by its driver? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-APSRTC, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 6. After taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- to the claimants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the APSRTC. 7. Heard the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC and the learned counsel for the claimants. 8. The learned counsel for the APSRTC contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that three persons were going (including rider) on the motorcycle at the time of alleged accident; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PWs 2 and 3; that the Tribunal erred in not attributing contributory negligence to the deceased and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 9. Father of the deceased was examined as PW.1. PW.2 is the rider of the two wheeler, whereas PW.3 is the pillion rider. PW.2 stated that he along with deceased was proceeding to Jahangeerpeer Dargah from Hyderabad on a motorcycle bearing No.AHW 859. He is the rider of the motorcycle. Deceased is the pillion rider. When the said motorcycle reached Rangapur village, bus bearing No. AP IIZ 2717 came in opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the motorcycle as a result he and pillion rider fell down on the road, sustained injuries. Pillion rider, while undergoing treatment, died on the same day. PW.3 stated that RTC bus bearing No. AP IIZ 2717 dashed against the motorcycle of PW.2 resulting in injuries to the pillion rider (deceased). In fact, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 discloses that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle and one Parvez was riding the motorcycle, but PW.2 was not the rider of motorcycle. As observed by the court below, there is no evidence to establish that because of three persons going on motorcycle, the motorcyclist got confused, fell down, received injuries and died in the hospital. In this case, the driver of the ill-fated bus was not examined. The police investigation reveals that the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle on which deceased was travelling resulting in the death of the deceased. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 discloses that the bus dashed the motorcycle on which deceased was proceeding. Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest panchanama reveals that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by its driver. Ex.A5 M.V.I. report reveals that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the bus. However, no witness was examined on behalf of the APSRTC to establish that the rider of the motorcycle contributed towards accident in any manner. Therefore, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, it can be said that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not appear to be erroneous or irregular and as such the same does not warrant interference from this court in any manner. 11. Hence, the MACMA fails and the same is dismissed. ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 08-07-2010 Stp