THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2191 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellant-APSRTC filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 19.02.2004, passed in O.P.No.423 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.1999 when B. Jagannadham boarded the lorry bearing No.AP-21-U-5459 to go to Nandyal from Chittoor on his business work, the said lorry was hit by the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-5143 at about 5.30 AM at Moolavanka Bridge near C.K.Dinne Police Station in Kadapa District, due to which, said Jagannadham and two others died including the driver of the lorry. The claimants, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased Jagannadham, filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- payable by the respondents therein. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurer of the lorry filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and stated that the accident occurred due to collision between the lorry and the bus on account of gross negligence of the bus driver. The third respondent-APSRTC filed counter denying the manner of accident and stated that the claim is excessive. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-21-U-5459 and/or due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 5143? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 marked. 5. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of lorry and the bus equally, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, payable equally by respondents 1 and 3, the owners of the lorry and the bus respectively, and dismissed the petition against respondent No.2- insurer of the lorry. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-APSRTC. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of lorry and the bus without proper evidence. 7. Admittedly, the driver of the lorry died in the accident. The wife of the deceased, who was examined herself as P.W.1, stated initially that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but later, stated that it was occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the lorry and the bus. The evidence of P.W.2, who travelled in the bus at the time of accident, is also not clear as to whether at whose negligence, the accident occurred, except stating that there was collision between the lorry and the bus. As the driver of the lorry died in the said accident, the police registered the case against the driver of the bus. In the order impugned, it was held that Ex.A1- First Information Report is also not clear as to which driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving at the time of accident. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal as regards the contributory negligence equally on the part of both the drivers. 8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- as Clerk in Sakthi Gunny Stores, Chittoor, and after quantifying the total amount towards loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc., the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at Rs.2,24,000/-, but restricted it to the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal can be reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 9. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:01.07.2010 sj