HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 710 of 2005 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. .. Appellant And 1. Dalli Bharathi 2. MaddiVenkata Rao .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated 01.10.2003 in M.O.P.No. 498 of 2001 passed by III Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The claimant filed the aforementioned M.O.P. alleging that she is the wife of the deceased – D. Ravindra Reddy. On 18.06.1999, at about 18.30 hours, while the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Kavasaki Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 31M 5535 from his office to his house and when he reached opposite to the burial ground at Gopalapatnam, an R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6105 of Paderu Depot which was coming from N.A.D.Kotha Road being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, hit his motorcycle with right side front portion of the bus, due to which, he fell on the road and sustained grievous bleeding head injury and died instantaneously. In this connection, a case in Crime No.15 of 1999 was registered under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the bus. The deceased was working in Food Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam and earning Rs.8,033-50 per month and aged 45 years by the date of accident. Hence, the claimant filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that on 18.06.1999, the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6105 was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Paderu, and when the bus reached Registrar’s office of Gopalapatnam, he was proceeding slowly as there was traffic at that spot. At that time, an Auto came in the opposite direction and it almost crossed the right side rear wheel portion of the bus and at the same time, a motorcyclist, while trying to overtake the bus, got confused on seeing the Auto, and suddenly applied brakes, due to which, he fell on the road and sustained head injury. On seeing the same, the driver of the bus stopped the vehicle and went to rear portion of the bus and observed the motorcyclist died on the spot. The driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus. Had the bus hit the motorcyclist from behind, there would have been damage to the Motorcycle on its backside, but as per the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report, there was no damage to the bus. Therefore, the claimant has to strictly prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claim made by the claimant is excessive. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Originally, the petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, and subsequently, by filing I.A.No.1263 of 2002 the claim was enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/-. Thereafter, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed additional counter contending that there is no basis to make claim for Rs.8,00,000/-. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6105 by the 1st respondent on 18.06.1999 at 06.30 p.m. resulting in the death of D. Ravindra Reddy? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, what amount and from whom? In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner got herself examined as PW1 besides examining two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and 2 were marked. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 6105, and granted an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. has filed the present appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the appellant, has contended that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are eye witnesses, is not consistent with that of PW1, who is an interested witness to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is further contended that though the deceased is said to have studied 10th class, no S.S.C. certificate was got marked to prove his age, and the Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 45 years and the compensation granted to the claimant towards loss of consortium and loss of estate are on higher side, and prays to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant has contended that the Tribunal has rightly found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. Bus, and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and prays to dismiss the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The evidence of PW1 alone cannot be relied upon solely because she is the wife of the deceased and an interested witness. The evidence of any other independent or eye-witnesses is relevant to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. PW2 deposed that on 18.06.1999 at about 06.30 p.m., while himself and his friend Raju were near Baji Junction, they witnessed an accident wherein an R.T.C. Bus which was proceeding from Vizag to Paderu dashed a motorcycle which was coming from the opposite side. PW3 deposed that the driver of an R.T.C. Bus plying between Visakhapatnam and Paderu, drove it at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, and caused the accident. Even though the evidence of RW1, who is said to be the eyewitness to the incident, and RW2, the driver of the R.T.C. bus, stated that the deceased, while overtaking the bus, got confused on seeing an Auto coming opposite to it, and fell and sustained injuries, and the driver of the bus was not rash and negligent in driving the bus, their evidence is not at all corroborated by any other evidence. However, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is clinching and corroborating with Ex.B3 – copy of the charge sheet filed in C.C. No.493 of 1999 against the driver of the bus. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are stated to be direct witnesses, strangers and not related to PW1, is trustworthy and cogent. Hence, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent herein, who is the driver of the bus, is perfectly justified. Further, insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel contends that there is no documentary evidence to show that the age of the deceased is 45 years. However, Ex.A4 – postmortem report of the deceased discloses that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is determined as 45 years and this piece of evidence cannot be eschewed from consideration. Hence, the two-fold contentions put forth by the learned Standing Counsel that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is not consistent with that of PW1 in proving that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that the determination of age of the deceased at the time of the accident is 45 years, is false, are not sustainable. However, this Court, while taking into consideration the other aspects of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel, is inclined to reduce the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.20,000/-. So also, the compensation under the head of “loss of estate” is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby reduced to 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 01.10.2003, this appeal preferred by the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj