IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2768 OF 1998 Between: APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director. ......Appellant AND C.Venugopala Charry and others ......Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri A.V.Sivaiah Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in O.P.No.415 of 1994, dated 17.02.1998. 2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the respondent/claimant seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the accident which occurred on 14.02.1994. The appellant’s bus allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, who sustained injuries on account of the said accident and after obtaining appropriate medical treatment he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The Tribunal below found on issue No.1 that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driven by its driver, RW.1. To the extent of the quantum, the tribunal below has found that the compensation payable to the claimant on account of 60% disability, which he has suffered, works out to Rs.3,94,445/-. The said amount was awarded together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the claim petition to the extent of respondents 2 and 3 i.e., the driver of the scooter and the Insurance company of the scooter was dismissed. Aggrieved by the above, present appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence by the scooterist and as such the apportionment of compensation ought to have been made by the tribunal below. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the specific averments in their counter affidavit filed before the tribunal below that the scooterist tried to overtake another vehicle and after hearing the horn from bus he lost control and dashed against the right side of the bus. Therefore, the said contributory negligence is clearly attributable to the second respondent/scooterist. The counsel contends that whatever compensation is assessed by the tribunal below, the same is not entirely the liable on the appellant and it ought to have been appropriately apportioned to the second respondent also. 5. I have considered the aforesaid contention in the light of the findings of the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below has already found that except the oral evidence of driver of the offending bus, Rw-1, there is no other evidence produced before the tribunal below to establish the contributory negligence. Further, the claimant was a pillion rider and in any case the claimant cannot be attributed with any contribution towards the accident. So far as contributory negligence as alleged against second respondent is concerned, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition so far as second and third respondent/Insurance company are concerned. However, the present appeal already stood dismissed against second respondent as early as on 16.09.2008 for not submitting process fee in this appeal, therefore, a finding cannot be given so far as second respondent is concerned and the claimant in any case being not liable for the contributory negligence, as alleged, the decree under appeal cannot be interfered with. 6. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the interest awarded by the tribunal below at 12% per annum is on much higher side and not in conformity with the rate of interest, which has been granted in several decisions of the Supreme Court and seeks for scaling down the said interest. 8. However, I find that this Court while pending the appeal had passed an interim order directing the appellant to deposit 60% of the awarded amount together with interest and costs and the claimant was entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Since 60% of the compensation together with interest is already withdrawn by the claimant, the appellant will have to now deposit balance 40% of the compensation. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellant together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. In the result, except to the extent of the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 28th August, 2009 Ivd