THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1487 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, questioning the Award dated 19.11.2002 in M.V.O.P.No. 248 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The facts, which are necessary for consideration of this Appeal, are, on 01.12.1998, at about 08.00 p.m., while Sri Bollu Ramarao (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’) was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. AP 16G 1011 from Tadigadapa to Kurumaddali, en route near Pamarru, the 7th respondent drove the bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 6719 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting which, he died instantaneously. The 3rd respondent is the pillion of the deceased and he sustained injuries. It is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.1,60,000/- per annum through various sources. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,00,000 has been claimed. The appellants herein filed their counter disputing the involvement of the RTC bus in the accident. They allege that the deceased lot control over the scooter and fell in a ditch with the scooter. They also opposed the claim as it was excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether the deceased Bollu Ramarao died in a motor vehicle accident on 01.12.1998 due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus AP 9Z 6719 by R-1? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so to what amount and from whom? 4. To what extent? On behalf of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the Sarpanch of the village was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the Corporation, R.W.1 was examined The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence adduced orally and documentary, came to the conclusion on point No.1 that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and on points No.2 and 3, it assessed the age of the deceased at about 43 years and his income at Rs.5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, arrived that the contribution of the deceased towards his family is Rs.40,000/- per annum and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.4,85,500/- in favour of the claimants with interest at 9% per annum and apportioned the same amongst the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the accident in question was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased scooterist only and it cannot be attributed to the driver of the corporation. He further contends that the claim of the claimants ought to have been rejected at the threshold for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum which is on higher side. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, no eye witness to the occurrence of the accident has been examined on behalf of the claimants. However, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, who is the Sarpanch of the village to which the deceased belonged, coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A3, held that the driver of the RTC bus was guilty of the accident. A perusal of the evidence of driver of the RTC bus, who was examined as R.W.1, shows that the deceased came in his opposite direction driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and fell into a ditch, resulting in his death at the spot. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the evidence of R.W.1, I deem it appropriate to apply the theory of ‘contributory negligence’ and therefore, it is to be held that the appellants can be fastened with the liability of 70% only. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the Award to the effect that the negligence on the part of the appellants is only 70%. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs.3,39,850/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK