THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.252 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal has been filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2005 in MVOP No.161 of 2001 on the file of the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Tirupati whereby an amount of Rs.2.60,000/- was awarded to the claimants in view of the death of the husband of Respondent No.1 – claimant No.1 and father of respondent No.2 - claimant No.2 in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2000 at about 5.30 AM near Subha Film Station on Tirupati Renigunta main road. 2 The facts in brief are that on 18.05.2000 at 5.30 AM while the deceased Shmsu Sahed and others were travelling in the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 1283 belonging to the appellant from Papanaidupet to Tirupati and when the bus reached near Subha Film Station, the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent No.3 bearing No. KA 01/5999 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus belonging to the appellant, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in SVRR Hospital, Tirupati on 24.6.2000. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 40 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing ice business. Hence respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein – claimants filed the claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under all heads. The appellant filed its written statement refuting the various averments stated in the claim petition. 3 Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased Shamsu Saheb died in the motor vehicle accident due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. KA – 01/5999 and A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 1283 belonging to the respondents 1 & 3. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 4 During the course of trial, the claimant No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 besides examining one P. Ramachandra Naidu as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On the other hand, the driver of the private bus involved in the accident was examined as R.W.1 and the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 5 The Tribunal, as stated supra, having considered the entire material placed before it, allowed the said O.P. in part by fixing the liability on the drivers of the private bus and the appellant in the ratio of 70% and 30% respectively and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- to the claimants with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the APSRTC preferred this appeal. 6 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal was not justified in fixing 30% liability on the appellant and 70% on the respondent No.3 since the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the private bus bearing No.KA 01/5999 belonging to the respondent No.3 and, further, the case in Cr.No.80 of 2000 was registered against the driver of the said private bus only for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338, 337 and 279 of IPC. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence of R.W.1 discloses that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the private bus causing death of four occupants travelling in the APSRTC bus and causing injuries to 18 passengers including the conductor and driver of the APSRTC bus besides causing damage to the right front portion of the bus belonging to the appellant. She lastly contended that the sole liability is on the part of the owner and insurer of the private bus only and hence the Tribunal erred in fixing 30% liability on the appellant instead of fixing the total liability on the owner and insurer of the private bus. It is also contended that the interest at 9% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side and the same is liable to be reduced to 7.5% p.a. 7 Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and also the counsel for the respondent No.4, the insurer of the private bus belonging to the respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the insurer of the private bus Mr.Kota Subba Rao contended that the claimants claimed in their pleadings itself that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability jointly and severally on both the buses. It is also contended that since the crime is registered against the driver of the private bus, it does not follow that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on his part when the claimants themselves pleaded that the accident was due to the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the buses. Moreover, the fate of the criminal case is not yet known. Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal is justified in apportioning the liability on both the buses under Section 168 of the M.V. Act and it has, after taking the facts and circumstances of the case and other material available on record into consideration, rightly apportioned the liability as 30% on the appellant-APSRTC and 70% on the bus belonging to respondent No.3. 8 As seen from the award impugned in this appeal, it is to be observed that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day notionally which comes to Rs.18,000/- p.a. As on the date of the death the deceased, he was aged 40 years and hence the multiplier “15” applied by the Tribunal as per the Schedule II of the M.V. Act is correct. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.58,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased – respondent No.1 herein and ultimately arrived at a total figure of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 9 After hearing the learned counsel on all the sides and inasmuch as the claimants themselves have pleaded that the accident was due to the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error or irregularity in apportioning the liability between both the drivers warranting interference of this court. Further, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation to be awarded to the claimants under all the heads and hence the same also does not warrant interference of this court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% p.a. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. ----------------------------- B.N.RAO NALLA, J. Date: 20.07.2011 Kvsn