HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3364 of 2003 DATED: 05.02.2010 BETWEEN: A.P.S.R.T.C. …Appellant And K.Purushotham and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3364 of 2003 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C represented by its Managing Director R.T.C. Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, which is the respondent in the Award, dated 22.04.2003 in O.P.No.123 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The respondents, who are legal representatives of the deceased Smt. J,Rajeshwari filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that on 25.01.1999 at about 12 noon the deceased was knocked down by the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 Z 7966 which was proceeding from Jubilee Hills to Koti Depot. They claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against which the learned Tribunal having held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, granted compensation of Rs.2,87,417/-. 3. The appellant-Corporation assailed the award on two grounds viz. that the accident occurred as the deceased suddenly alighted from the bus which was in running condition without informing the conductor or the driver, as a result of which, she received injuries and that the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, who was examined as RW.1 and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant. The quantum of compensation was also questioned on the ground that it is excessive and deserves to be reduced. 4. As regards the first contention, the version of the respondents-claimants is that while the deceased was going by walk on the road, the RTC bus, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, on account of which, she had sustained head injury and ultimately she succumbed to the head injury. 5. To substantiate the said contention, the respondents examined D.Venkata Swamy as PW.2, who had categorically spoken to the fact of the happening of the accident. As per the version of the respondents, PW.2 being an independent witness was given credence by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below rejected the version of the driver of the RTC bus, who was examined as RW1, though he stated that the deceased received injuries as a result of jumping from the bus bearing NoAP9 Z 7966 which was in running condition. It is the version of RW.1 that the deceased without informing him or the driver of the bus, suddenly alighted from the bus and thereafter, he obtained the signatures of the passengers on the statistical register (S.R.) incorporating the factum of happening of the incident. But, the said fact has not been proved by the Corporation by producing the concerned S.R. and by examining any of the passengers in proof of the contention urged. Further the accident took place about 12 noon on 25.01.1999. PW.1, the husband of the deceased is the person, who lodged the first information report on the next day. According to him, he received information at about 4.00 PM on the same day, but he was unable to inform the police about the same since there was nobody to look after the deceased as she was in unconscious state and undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The said fact has been recited in the first information report lodged by him with the police, which is marked as Ex.A.1. In this context, it is relevant to notice that according to RW1, the driver of the APSRTC bus, he is the person who shifted the injured to the hospital soon after the accident. If that is so and the accident took place as a result of the deceased jumping from the bus which was in running condition, he ought to have given a report to the police mentioning the said fact therein. But in this case, no such report has been lodged by RW1 and admittedly the first information report was lodged with regard to the incident only by PW.1, who is the husband of the deceased on the next day. Further, after thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet against RW1 on being satisfied about the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the evidence of PW.2, an independent eyewitness to the accident shall be given credence and the finding which is based on his evidence by the Tribunal below does not call for any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellant. 6. The next point to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation granted to the respondents, who are the legal representatives of the deceased is just and reasonable or excessive. 7. The deceased was a house wife and she was also doing tailoring at home and she was aged 26 years on the date of her death. The learned Tribunal only considered her income as Rs.1500/- per month which is reasonable. The Tribunal also applied the correct multiplier and granted total compensation of Rs.2,87,417/- which is in accordance with law, just and reasonable. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal relating to the quantum of compensation is also affirmed and this point is answered against the appellant-Corporation. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:05.02.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3364 of 2003 DATED: 05.02.2010