THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2707 of 2003 Between: APSRTC rep.by its Regional Manager ..... APPELLANT AND Smt.Mahendrakar Pandari Bai .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs.W.V.S.Rajeswari Counsel for the Respondents: None appared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The appellant, the APSRTC, filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award, dated 25.04.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.360 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’), feeling aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.3,02,826/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition in favour of the respondent herein towards compensation for the death of her husband. At the hearing, Sri W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, has raised the only contention that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the plea of the appellant that the accident has occurred on account of the fault of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the appellant. The appellant has examined its driver as RW.1 in respect of its plea that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased, while the respondent has examined PW.2, who is a pillion rider and an eye-witness to the accident. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that when the moped driven by the deceased reached near B.Tandrapadu, the bus belonging to the appellant came from Kurnool side in opposite direction and driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the moped at a high speed and that he jumped from the moped on to the road. RW.1 has, however, deposed in his evidence that the bus was bound from Raichur to Nandyal and that the bus was climbing the up gradient, while the moped was travelling downwards. He has further deposed that the moped has hit the bus at a high speed. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the FIR was registered against the driver of the bus and a charge sheet was also filed against him for rash and negligent driving. On an analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal has rejected the plea of the appellant that the driver of the bus was not at fault. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the said conclusion, warranting interference with the same. No other point has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, the interim order granted on 21.07.2003 in C.M.A.M.P.No.15527 of 2003, which was made absolute on 02.01.2004 in C.M.A.M.P.No.21297 of 2003, shall stand vacated, and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.15527 and 21297 of 2003 are dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 21.10.2010 VGB