THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3018 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation – the third respondent in the O.P., against the order passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.1198 of 1998. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 15.01.1995, 16 postal employees went on excursion trip to Karnataka by Matador Van bearing No.KA 11/1072 and when they reached Bargur near Mysore at about 6.15 p.m., there was a collision between the Matador van and the bus of K.S.R.T.C. bearing No.KA 13 F 0173 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. Five persons died in the accident on the spot including the husband of the first petitioner herein, by name Subrahmanyam. The driver of the van also died. The deceased was aged 48 years, working as Sub-postmaster at Rajahmundry, drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. Respondents 1,2 and 4 remained exparte and third respondent filed counter contending that when the bus was proceeding on the road, near Bargur the Matador van came from a bye lane all of a sudden without blowing horn and dashed the bus. Thus, the van driver was at fault. The fifth respondent-Oriental Insurance Company also filed counter denying the liability. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the death of V.V.Subrahmanyam occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.K.A.11/1072 by the first respondent and also on account of the collision between the two vehicles bearing registration Nos.K.A.11/1072 and K.A.13 F/0173? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. Considering the material on record, the learned Judge granted compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- holding that 40% liability is on the present appellants and 60% liability is on the insurer and owner of the van. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. The contention of the appellants is that the entire negligence was on the part of the driver of the van. As such, the tribunal erred in awarding compensation against the appellants. It is also the contention of the appellants that no eyewitness was examined about the accident and the court ought not to have relied on the a decision in another O.P. in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 1995, wherein it was held that there was 40% and 60% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the van. Infact, an appeal was filed against the above finding in that O.P. 7. There is no dispute that O.P.No.412 of 1995 was filed by the claimants for the death of one Umadevi, who died in the same accident and there the negligence was held to be 40% on the driver of the bus and 60% on the driver of the van and that order become final. The present appellants contend that an appeal is filed against that award, but, there is no material to show the same. As such, the liability of the bus – present appellant at 40% has to be accepted. 8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it cannot be said to be on higher side in view of the finding of the Court below. Such being the case, absolutely there are no grounds to allow the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 1st October 2010, Rns