HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 3326 of 2002 DATED: 05.08.2010 Between: N. Lakshmi Devi and two others .. Appellants/ Claimants And 1. APSRTC 2. N. Venkata Satya Narayana .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.09.2002 made in M.V.O.P. No. 911 of 2000 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.81,500/- which is 50%of the total compensation of Rs.1,63,000/- in favour of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and with proportionate costs, while dismissing the rest of the claims against the 1st respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. The facts of the case in brief are that on 06.09.2000, at about 11.00 a.m., the 1st appellant along with her husband Venkataswamy boarded a bus at Owk, and when the bus reached Sangapatnam village, they got down, went home, but found some luggage missing and thought that they forgot it in the bus. Immediately, after going back to the bus station, her husband boarded the bus and could trace the luggage and while alighting the bus with the luggage, the driver of the bus moved it in a rash and negligent manner without receiving signal from the conductor, as a result, the deceased fell down and left side rear tyre of the bus ran over him inflicting grievous injuries in the accident. While he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident vehicle. The 1st respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter affidavit in the Tribunal inter alia contending that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, based on the pleadings, framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 9110? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount? Additional Issue: i) Whether the second respondent is entitled to share compensation along with the petitioners, if so, to what amount? The petitioners, to substantiate their claim for compensation, examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. RW1 was examined, but no document was marked on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, allowed the petition in part as stated supra. PW1, wife of the deceased, deposed that after reaching home from bus station, she and her husband found one baggage missing, as such, both of them went back to the bus stop at Sangapatnam, and her husband boarded the bus to take the bag, meanwhile, the driver of the bus started the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without receiving signal from the conductor, as a result, her husband fell down from the bus and rear wheels of the bus ran over him and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day. She further deposed that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 40 years and he was running a grocery shop earning Rs.3000/- per month. In cross-examination, she denied a suggestion that they were at Kirana shop on the date of the death of her husband. She denied a suggestion that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of her husband while alighting the bus in a hurried manner. RW1, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP9Z 9110, deposed that when the bus reached Sangapatnam, some persons got down and some passengers boarded the bus. Afterwards, the conductor closed the door and gave him signal to move the bus. Then, he started the bus and before changing the gear some passengers shouted and asked him to stop the bus, and on hearing the cries, he stopped the bus and saw one person lying on the road side with injuries. On enquiry with the passengers, he came to know that when the deceased tried to get down from the moving bus he slipped and fell down. He further deposed that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased, who tried to get down from the moving bus by opening the door without asking him or the conductor to stop the bus. He denied a suggestion that he suddenly started the bus even without receiving signal from the Conductor and that the accident occurred only due to his negligence. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a careful analysis of the evidence of PW1 and RW1, it is obvious that the husband of PW1, in a hurry to take his baggage, boarded the bus, took the baggage, and without asking either the Conductor or the driver to stop the bus, tried to get down from the moving bus, and in the process, he slipped and fell down sustaining grievous injuries, and the driver is no way responsible for his death. Even if the evidence of PW1 that the deceased got into the bus to take back his luggage, meanwhile, the driver of the bus closed the door and started the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without receiving signal from the conductor, as a result, her husband fell down from the bus, is taken to be true, it can be safely inferred that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased inasmuch as the deceased, who was to get down from the moving bus with his baggage in a hurry, should have informed either the driver or the conductor to stop the bus, but there is no evidence that he had informed the driver or the conductor to stop the bus. If he had informed the conductor about his intention to get down from the moving bus, the conductor would have given signal to the driver to stop the bus to let him get down. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1 it can be safely concluded that there is any amount of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in his death. Another aspect of the matter is that even though PW1 stated in her pleadings as well as in her evidence that the earnings of her husband per month is Rs.3000/-, and he was doing Kirana business, the same was not corroborated by any documentary evidence, such as, receipt showing licence fee paid to Gram Panchayat and his source of income. Further, the evidence of PW1 reveals that the age of her husband at the time of the accident was 40 years, whereas, Ex.A2 – Inquest report and Ex.A3 – Post-mortem certificate show that the age of the deceased was 45 years, and as could be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal applied correct multiplier as contemplated in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence on record, more particularly, the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, appears to be quite justifiable, and this Court does not see any reason for enhancing the compensation. In all aspects of the matter, the order dated 07.09.2002 in M.V.O.P. No.911 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool holds good. With the above modification of the impugned order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 5th August, 2010 bcj