IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2 2 0 4 OF 2007. Between: The APSRTC Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad … Appellant V/s. B. Hanmi Reddy & 5-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. B.G. Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. Aanda Rao for R1, 3 & 4 Sri T.Mahender Rao for R2, R5 & R6 The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2 2 0 4 OF 2007. J U D G M E N T : Aggrieved of the award and decree dated 14- 6-2005 passed in O.P.No. 136 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge), Mahbubnagar, the Managing Director of APSRTC, Hyderabad, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: That on 14-4-2001 at about 07:00 p.m., while the deceased Venkatamma was proceeding from Gundumal village to Mahbubnagar as pillion rider on the Hero Honda motorcycle being driven by her relation, Mr.B.Navaneeth Reddy. By the time when they reached near Hanwada bus stand, one Ambassador Car bearing Regdn.No. AP-10C-525 came behind and dashed the motorcycle, as a result, Venkatamma fell on the road. Immediately, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z-2671 of Pargi Depot came from backside and ran over the deceased. As a result, due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and also the RTC bus, the deceased died on the spot. The Police Hanwada registered a case in Cr.No.22/2000 under section 304-A IPC against the drivers of the car and the bus. The deceased was working as Attender in Zilla Parishad Office, Mahbubnagar and drawing salary of Rs.6,034-00 per month at the time of her death. The first claimant is the husband, claimants 2 to 4 are children of predeceased daughters of the deceased Venkatamma. The claimants 2 to 4 were under the guardianship and maintenance of the deceased ever since the death of their mother. Hence, the claimants filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000-00 on account of the death of the deceased, Venkatamma in the aforesaid accident. 3. Before the Claims Tribunal, the first respondent did not file counter. The second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and alleged that they do not admit any of the allegations in the petition and hence, the petitioners are put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the petition. It is alleged that the accident took place due to the gross negligence of the driver of RTC bus and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 does not admit that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was insured with the Insurance Company by the time of the accident. The compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying all the allegations in the petition including the involvement of their bus in the accident in question. It is denied that their bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, the petition is liable tobe dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival contentions, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 14-4-2001 at about 7 p.m., at Hanwada bus stand due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador Car No.AP10C-525 and RTC bus bearing No.AP10Z-2671 of Pargi Depot by its drivers and whether it resulted in causing the death of deceased, G.Venkatamma ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom ? (3) To what relief ? 6. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents 1 and 3, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. However, the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company had been examined as RW-1 on behalf of respondent No.2 and got marked Ex.B1 copy of Insurance Policy on their behalf. The record further discloses that Respondents 1 and 3 have not participated in the cross-examination of the witnesses nor adduced any arguments before the Claims Tribunal. 7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Claims Tribunal answered the aforesaid issues and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000-00 together with costs and subsequent interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant as well as Sri A. Ananda Rao, learned counsel representing Respondents 1, 3 and 4 and also Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel representing respondents 2, 5 and 6. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 10. The facts of the case are that on 14-4-2001 at 07:00 p.m., the driver of Ambassador Car bearing Regdn.No. AP-10C-525 was rash and negligent in driving it and hit against the deceased, who was a pillion rider at the time of accident. As the deceased fell down from the two wheeler, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z-2671 of Pargi Depot that was coming from behind ran over her body causing her instantaneous death. In the circumstances, it can be said that it is a rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car that becomes the first cause of the accident. Since the driver of the APSRTC bus was negligent in not averting the accident or driving his vehicle from running over the body of the deceased, is the second cause. Therefore, the lower Tribunal rightly held that in the absence of any contra evidence, the evidence of eye-witness has to be accepted and that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles i.e., the Ambassador Car and APSRTC bus. 11. Since the appellant has not challenged the findings of the Claims Tribunal that R2-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability and the same has become final. It is the case of the appellant-APSRTC that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus and as such the APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that the situation was such that the accident could not be averted. It was beyond the control of the APSRTC bus driver and it was inevitable that the APSRTC bus had to run over the deceased. 12. It is the further case of the appellant that since the monthly income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/- the lower Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier 11, as the deceased was aged 52 years as per postmortem examination certificate. Further the lower Tribunal committed an error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum. No doubt, as per postmortem examination certificate, the deceased was aged 52 years and the appropriate multiplier 11 was applied by the lower Tribunal. In so far as the application of the multiplier is concerned, the lower Tribunal has not committed any error. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, it cannot be questioned now since the findings to that effect has become final and the same has not been challenged in this appeal. 13. It is the case of the Insurance Company – Respondent No.2 in the O.P. and Respondent No.6 in this appeal that Ex.B1 insurance policy had expired on 08-12-2000 and that the accident occurred on 14-4-2001 i.e., more than four months after the expiry of Ex.B1 insurance policy. As such, the fastening of liability on the Insurance Company does not arise and the lower Tribunal has held in support of the Insurance Company in this regard and exonerated the Insurance Company from any liability to pay compensation and the said finding is not challenged in this appeal and it has become final. 14. Further RW-1 who was examined on behalf of Insurance Company justified that Ex.B1 Insurance policy was expired on 08-12-2000 and since the accident occurred on 14-4- 2001, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify. It is further to be observed in this regard that the Insurance Company is absolved from any liability to pay any compensation and that RW-1 was not subjected to cross-examination. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced to the contrary and as such, his evidence goes unchallenged. Consequently, the Insurance Company is absolved from any liability to pay compensation. Now the owner of the car as well as the owner of APSRTC bus cannot avoid their liability and the same was considered and fixed by the lower Tribunal, making them liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation. 15. Coming to the interest part, the lower Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% p.a. However, the appellant-APSRTC contended that the lower Tribunal failed to award rate of interest at 7.5% p.a., as the same was settled legal position then. Since it is brought in the appeal for reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. and the same is considered by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with the findings of the lower Tribunal except modifying the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 17. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO, NALLA. 01-07-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA MA.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2204 OF 2007 Circulation No. Date:01-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L