THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.2655 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 21-06-2006 made in O.P.No.1609 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, awarding compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The parties herein are referred to as they as arrayed before the court below. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Sahu Trinadh is the son of claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd claimant. He was aged 24 years at the time of accident. He was working as a Welder under a private contractor in Dry Dock and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was a bachelor and staying with the claimants. The deceased being the employee used to catch connecting bus to reach his house at Madhurawada and for the said purpose, he has to change buses at APSRTC complex, Visakhapatnam. On 13-01-2003, after attending duty, the deceased was returning to his home and having reached APSRTC complex, Visakhapatnam, had to alight the bus at the Western side entrance as per the Station procedure and had to walk all the way towards North eastern side entrance i.e., Asilmetta side entrance of APSRTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. While the deceased was walking through the bus station, he was hit by a bus and immediately he fell down and succumbed to injuries. On a complaint given by one V.L.V.Satyanarayana Rao, Assistant Manager, about the death of the deceased alleging that due to involvement of O.S.R.T.C. buses, the deceased died, a case was registered in Cr.No.5 of 203. According to the claimants, the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles inside A.P.S.R.T.C. complex, Visakhapatnam, without care and caution towards pedestrians and passengers. A counter has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 denying the allegations made in the petition and stated that none of the vehicles belonging to respondents 1 and 2 was responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated that the claimants should prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicles belonging to the 3rd respondent. The inquest report etc., are all brought into existence at the instance of the officials of APSRTC. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of one of the buses belonging to respondents 1 and 2 and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- together with interest. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by R-1 and R-2. Learned counsel appearing for R-1 and R-2 submits that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicles belonging to R-1 and R-2. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus is without any basis and, therefore, the presumption drawn by the court below that the deceased might have died because of the rash driving of one of the A.P.S.R.T.C. buses against the deceased and that there is no possibility of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation bus, is without any foundation and, therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. I have considered the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the R-1 and R-2. I have perused the records. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the accident and according to the report given by V.L.V.Satyanarayana Rao, Assistant Manager of APSRTC, Dwaraka Bus Station, Visakhapatnam, on 13-01-2004 at about 9 a.m., a dead body was lying near the Washing plant, where the night express services were parked and on enquiry from K.K.Murthy, the driver of Gajuwaka depot stated that he had seen the dead body and one O.S.R.T.C. bus was also parked near the dead body. As per the records, there were two buses of O.S.R.T.C. and, therefore, one of the buses of O.S.R.T.C. might have hit the person and due to that he might have died. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of APSRTC, on whose information the complaint was given, was examined as RW.1 and the drivers of O.S.R.T.C. were examined as RWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. A perusal of FIR goes to show that a report given by one P.H.Rao, security guard, on 13-01-2003 to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, was also enclosed and as per the said report, he was on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 4 p.m. and while he was going for the rounds at about 8.30 a.m. in the APSRTC Complex out gate bus parking, he saw a dead body aged about 25 years. He also noticed that there is a black scratch of the tyre on the backside of the deceased person. He also found a bus pass given in the name of the dead person viz., S.Trinadh resident of Madhurawada. It is also stated that he might have died due to hit of a bus alone. Accordingly, he informed the same to the higher officials for taking appropriate action. The police, instead of registering FIR basing on the said report given by P.H.Rao, have registered a case basing on the report given by V.L.V.Satyanarayana, Assistant Manager of APSRTC. A perusal of the report given by the Assistant Manager goes to show that he gave report basing on the statement of information given by K.K.Murthy, who is the driver of Gajuwake depot, stating that on that date Sri K.K.Murthy said to have informed him stating that he noticed a dead person at about 9 a.m. When the security guard gave a report to the police, the Assistant Manager ought to have simply forwarded the said report to the police but basing on the said report, he has re-written another report as per the information given by the driver K.K.Murthy involving Orissa State Transport Bus. The police, instead of registering a case on the first report given by the security guard, have registered a case on the second report given by the Assistant Manager and obviously the second report given by the Assistant Manager is based on the information given by the driver. The said driver was examined as RW.1. According to him, while he was driving APSRTC bus in Route No.38 Y from Gajuwaka Depot to APSRTC Complex and when he reached Dwaraka Bus Station Complex by 4.45 a.m., he attended calls of nature at a corner of the Bus station, where he saw two Orissa State Road Transport Corporation buses, which were parked and found a person lying at a distance of 2 feet behind the rear wheels of Orissa State Transport Corporation Bus and he informed the same to the Controller. But, according to the evidence of RWs.2 and 3, it is stated that their buses reached Visakhapatnam Complex at 2.30 p.m. and on the next day at 4.45 a.m. they are supposed to ply back to Navarangapuram. They saw the dead body at about 4.45 a.m. lying at a distance of 20 feet. No doubt, there is no eyewitness to the accident. But, admittedly, the accident occurred within the complex of APSRTC. When RW.1, the driver of APSRTC bus said to have witnessed the dead body, he never gave any report to the police. Only after receiving the report given by the security guard, the Assistant Manger without enquiry took the version of the driver alone and gave report to the Police. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly came to the conclusion that all probabilities of the case would go to show that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus alone. Merely because the driver of the bus failed to give any complaint, it cannot be said that the APSRTC bus is not involved in the accident. Even according to the report given by the security guard, there is a black scratch of the tyre on the backside of the deceased person. There is no investigation, which bus hit the deceased person. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the officials of the APSRTC and, therefore, the court below had rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of one of the buses of APSRTC. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the court below. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the evidence of the claimants goes to show that the deceased was working as a Welder under a private contractor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. I am of the opinion that the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death would be more than Rs.2,000/- per month. But, however, the court below has taken the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- alone and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal earnings, ultimately awarded compensation of Rs.1,54,500/-, which is just and reasonable compensation, as the deceased was stated to be a bachelor used to contribute the entire earnings to the family and he was having APSRTC bus pass and, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd from out of the total income is also just and reasonable. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in awarding compensation of Rs.1,54,500/-. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 17-06-2010 Prv