THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 4021 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against an order and decree made in O.P. No. 2289 of 2001 dated 25.7.2003 on the file of learned II Additional Chief Judge- cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the O.P. Respondents in the O.P. are appellants herein and petitioners are respondents. It appears, on 29.7.2001 at about 14.00 hours, deceased Kotra Yadaiah Goud was traveling in a Jeep bearing No. ADG 8611 from Kalvakurthy to Donoor. After approaching the limits of Really village, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4619, belonging to Miryalguda Depot, came in opposite direction with high speed, rash and negligently, on complete right side of the road and dashed against the Jeep. As a result, Yadaiah Goud and some others died on the spot and the Jeep was thrown away 100 feet back into fields from the spot of accident. The Police of Midjil registered a case in Cr.No.39 of 2001 under Section 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of RTC Bus. 1st Petitioner is wife, 2nd, 3rd and 5th petitioners are sons and 4th petitioner is daughter and 6th petitioner is mother of the deceased. According to the petitioners, deceased was a Contractor besides having agriculture. Further, he was also elected as Director of PACS, Midjil and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month and was contributing the entire amount to the family. Deceased was the only earning member of the family. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in all. Respondents denied the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof regarding the manner in which the accident occurred and that they are called upon to prove age, occupation, income etc. of the deceased at the time of accident. Even otherwise, it is stated, that the petitioners are not entitled to any claim and that the amount claimed by them is highly excessive, speculative and imaginary, since their claim is without any basis. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4619 and hit the Jeep bearing No. ADG 8611 in which deceased was traveling? 2. Whether the petitioners who are legal representatives of the deceased Kotra Yadaiah Goud are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount? 3. To what relief? The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of RTC Bus was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. However, in so far as compensation was concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount Rs.1,10,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in fact there was contributory negligence on the part of Jeep driver. Therefore, placing entire negligence on the part of driver of RTC Bus is uncalled for. It is unfortunate that such a stand was taken. Absolutely no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of Jeep. The appellants have got examined RW-1, the driver of APSRTC Bus, who is an interested witness. No independent witness has been examined. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Jeep driver, in which the deceased was traveling. On the other hand, the evidence available on record clearly established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus and, therefore, no interference can be made into the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- against claim of respondents- petitioners for Rs.5,00,000/-, which is highly reasonable and cannot be said to be arbitrary, excessive or disproportionate as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such grant of compensation by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to b dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 19-3-2010. MVB.