IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3236 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND G. Ramana Reddy and another .. Respondents ORDER: This appeal is directed against the award dated 18-11-2002 in O.P.No.357 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, at Karimnagar. When the Van AP-1-U-2133, owned by the 1st respondent herein reached Tekumatla of Adilabad District on 27-12-1998 at about 6.45 P.M., being driven by Ch. Rajender, APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-6461, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against the van. The van driver was killed on the spot and the van was heavily damaged with the front portion being broken into pieces. Crime No.97 of 1998 was registered by the police against the bus driver and the assessment of loss by an Insurance Loss Assessor was to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The 1st respondent herein claimed to be earning Rs.15,000/- per month by plying the van as a transport vehicle, and hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the corporation. The driver of the bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the Corporation contended that the driving of the van in high speed in a jig jag manner resulted in the accident causing grievous injuries to the bus driver including fracture of his right leg and heavy damage to the bus. The bus was being driven at normal speed as per traffic rules and the compensation claimed is excessive, and hence, the Corporation desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the owner of the van to compensation and examined during enquiry PWs.1 to 4 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver with reference to the evidence of PW.2, the cleaner of the van and the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-scene of offence Panchanama as well as Ex.A.7-Copy of the charge sheet. Though the bus driver claimed as RW.1 that he was not negligent and relied on Ex.B.1-Judgment in C.C.No.25 of 2000, the Tribunal opined that any acquittal even on merits is not binding on the Tribunal and disagreed with the claims of the respondents. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.4, a mediator for the scene of offence Panchanama about the damage to the van observed by him making the van not roadworthy. The evidence of the surveyor as PW.3 was also referred to and the extensive damage noted by PW.3 was also noted to be justifying grant of Rs.2,11,000/- towards compensation. The compensation so awarded on the basis of Ex.A.3-quotation bills and Ex.A.4-survey report was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The said award is challenged by the Corporation in this appeal, firstly contending that the rash and negligent driving of the van by the deceased driver resulted in the accident and the evidence of RW.1 ought to have been accepted, more so, C.C.No.25 of 2000 resulted in an acquittal on merits which has become final. Apart from the contributory negligence on the part of the van driver, the reliance on the evidence of PW.3-the surveyor for grant of higher compensation is not justified. Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-owner of the van are heard. The 2nd respondent remained unrepresented before this Court. The points for consideration herein are whether the van driver and not the bus driver was responsible for the accident and whether the owner of the van is entitled to the compensation awarded. Ex.A.1-First Information Report was registered within two hours after the accident and it was specifically alleged that the bus was driven negligently in high speed and the bus dashed against the van. The scene of offence panchanama conducted by the police on the next day recorded the physical features at the scene and the independent mediators opined the bus to have been driven at high speed negligently resulting in the accident. The same was also the opinion of the independent mediators for the Inquest Panchanama and the contents of Exs.A.2 and A.9 thus support the allegations in the earliest version in Ex.A.1. PW.2, the cleaner of the van, deposed positively about the rash and negligent driving of the bus and not the van resulting in the accident and the bus driver as RW.1 had to admit that the independent statutory investigating agency prosecuted him in C.C.No.25 of 2000, which ended in acquittal as per Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1-Judgment shows that the Criminal Court relied on the alleged absence of proof about the identity of the driver of the bus at the time of accident and consequently acquitted RW.1. There is no whisper in Ex.B.1 about the bus driver being not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 304 A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code for which RW.1 was prosecuted. The acquittal on the question of identity thus does not run counter to the probabilities arising out of the other evidence on record referred to above, and hence, the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the accident cannot be interfered with. Though PW.1 claimed to have sustained a loss of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month due to being deprived of running the van on hire and though he being deprived of using the van and deriving the income therefrom resulted from the accident, the Tribunal did not consider the grant of any compensation under this head as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same. The cleaner of the van as PW.2 spoke about the front portion of the van being totally damaged and the entire body being bent. PW.3, the surveyor gave graphic details of the damage in his estimation and his evidence on oath is not shattered by any cross-examination about his credibility. The claims of PWs.2 and 3 find further corroboration from 18 photographs marked as Ex.A.6 and PW.4, the mediator for the scene of offence Panchanama, also stated about the van being so damaged as to be not roadworthy. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be considered to have gone wrong in accepting the independent estimation of the damage made by PW.3, while it did not straight away accept the claims of PW.1 about the extent of the damage. However, interest was awarded at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on the compensation awarded, even though the claim petition itself did not seek grant of any interest and the claimant as PW.1 also made no such request. While it is within the judicial discretion to award interest on the compensation from the date of petition, in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it should be remembered that the Appellant-Corporation is also a state owned Corporation in custody of public funds and in public service. The record does not disclose whether the damage to the van itself is the subject of any insurance taken by the owner and the vehicle was stated to be of the year 1992 and was obviously in regular use as a transport vehicle since then, the value of which will have to be subjected to necessary depreciation over the years. Keeping all the circumstances in view, interest on the compensation can be confined to 6% p.a. Accordingly, the award dated 18-11-2002 in O.P.No.357 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, is confirmed in all respects except regarding the interest payable on the compensation awarded from the date of petition till realization and such interest shall be confined to 6% p.a. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-09-2011 Ksn