THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.32795 OF 2010 DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam. And Another. … Petitioners And The Permanent Lok Adalat At Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Chairman. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.32795 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per SK,J) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) calls in question the Award dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.1609 of 2007, whereby it was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to respondents 2 to 6 herein with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The APSRTC’s bus bearing No.AP-10Z-6661 was involved in an accident while plying en route Gajuwaka to Mangalagiri on 08.01.2007. Thereby, the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP- 31S-7369, M.Rama Krishna, met with his death. Respondents 2 to 6 herein, being his legal representatives approached the Permanent Lok Adalat at Visakhapatnam by way of the subject case claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Permanent Lok Adalat relied upon the account of an independent eye witnesses, P.W.3, who stated that the bus in question was proceeding ahead of him on the fateful day and was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. According to him, when the bus tried to overtake the motorcycle in front of it, it dashed against the same resulting in the motorcyclist and the pillion rider falling on the road. The rear wheel of the bus was stated to have run over the pillion rider causing severe injuries on his stomach. This witness was an uninterested and detached witness and his testimony was not discredited in any manner. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat placed reliance on the same and concluded that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. The deceased pillion rider was a Travel Agent. The Proprietor of his Travel Agency was examined as P.W.2. He marked Ex.A.6 salary certificate demonstrating that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking into account the deceased’s age of 27 years and his salary particulars, the Lok Adalat applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition thereto, it also granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- to the widow towards loss of consortium. In all, the compensation amounted to Rs.6,50,000/-. Interest was awarded thereon at Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The Lok Adalat also apportioned the awarded compensation amongst the legal representatives, taking due care to protect the interests of the minor daughters of the deceased. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, ought not to have adjudicated the dispute involving complicated facts and ought to have directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. He contended that the Lok Adalat failed to take cognizance of the APSRTC’s plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and therefore, the compensation ought to have been proportionately reduced. He further contended that as a Travel Agent, the deceased was not assured of regular income and therefore the Lok Adalat ought not to have relied upon the salary certificate. He disputed the quantum of the amounts awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium on the ground that they were on the higher side. Having given due consideration to the contentions urged by the learned standing counsel, we find ourselves unable to agree with any of them. Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 empowers the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate and decide the dispute if the parties fail to reach an agreement. That being so, it was not necessary for the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, to direct the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. Having undertaken the exercise of deciding the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.3 in so far as the accident was concerned as he was an independent eye witness and his deposition stood unshaken. We find no error on the part of the Permanent Lok Adalat in accepting and acting upon his account of what had happened on the fateful day. It may be noted that the deceased was the pillion rider and no evidence was let in to show that there was any contributory negligence either on his part or on the part of the motorcyclist. The deposition of P.W.3 was that the bus driver was himself at fault as he was driving at high speed. In so far as the computation of compensation is concerned, the deposition of P.W.2, the employer of the deceased, and the salary certificate Ex.A.6 stood unshaken. Basing on the same, the Permanent Lok Adalat quantified the compensation. We do not find the compensation so arrived at or the amounts awarded by the Lok Adalat towards loss of estate and loss of consortium to be excessive or high. Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 31ST DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR