(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal before this Hon'ble court being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 15-11-2018 in MVOP NO. 151/2016 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum IV Additional District court, Kurnool

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP No. 151 of 2016 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum IV Additional District court, Kurnool)

1. The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC aggrieved by order dt.15.11.2018 in MVOP No.151 of 2016, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest on account of the death of Syed Jabiulla (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the accident that occurred on 05.03.2016. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is mother of the deceased. It was the case of the petitioners that, on 05.03.2016, the deceased was proceeding of motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP21 AQ 7278 so as to attend centric work. When he reached Thummala Bailu, Dornala-Saisailam Road, the offending APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AEZ 441 came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries on his right knee, cheek, lips besides of all over his body. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Dornala and later to Government Hospital, Markapuram, where the deceased died at about 04:30 pm. It was the case of the petitioners that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus. It was further stated that the deceased was aged 24 years and was earning Rs.600/-per day by doing centric works. In view of the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their source of income, love and affection. In those circumstances, the above claim petition came to be filed.

4. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the 2nd respondent. It was specifically denied the age and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. Further it was pleaded that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. They also marked documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the appellants/respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.9,34,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum under various conventional heads. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC.

6. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

7. Perused the record.

8. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. In order to substantiate the same, the respondent/appellant neither adduced oral evidence, nor marked any documentary evidence. The averments made in the counter affidavit would not suffice to prove the case of the appellant. On the contrary, the petitioners have filed copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked in Ex.A1 and A5. A perusal of the contents of the documents referred herein above, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be believed and accordingly the same is rejected.

9. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and it had erroneously fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day, despite there is was material placed before the Tribunal. In this connection, it is apparent from the record that, though the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.600/-per day, the Tribunal did not consider the same inasmuch as there was no documentary proof to show that he was earning such amount. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had fixed income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day notionally. It is not in dispute that the daily wage of coolie during the year 2016 was Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal was excessive. Further the Tribunal after taking into consideration of all the aspects, had arraived at just compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.9,35,000/- together with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

10. Though it was contended that the compensation was excessive, this Court does not find any force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant. Further the Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence had awarded just compensation.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

12. Further the appellant is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.