1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.09.2018 in MVOP No.307 of 2015, on the file of The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the claim petition.

3. The petitioners approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of their minor son - D.Yaswanth, in the accident that occurred on 09.09.2012, in which, the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP 03 Z 5629 was involved.

4. It is a case of the petitioners that on 09.09.2012, the deceased, along with his senior paternal uncle, boarded auto. When the auto reached Gurralarevu Vanka, the deceased got down from the auto, while the boy was crossing the road, the offending bus driven by the 2nd respondent came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.66 of 2012 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, against the driver/2nd respondent. The deceased boy was 7 years old as on the date of the accident and was studying first standard in Kesava Reddy Educational Institutions. In view of the death of the deceased, the petitioners approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

5. The 2nd respondent/driver of the bus remained Ex-parte. The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent by filing counter affidavit, inter alia contending that the claim of the petitioners was excessive. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto. It was further contended that the driver of the auto had no valid driving license. With the above pleadings, the 1st respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1, Smt. D.Indu Priya, eye witness, was examined as PW.2. The petitioners also marked documents in Ex.A1 to A7. On the other hand, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1, however no documentary evidence was placed on record. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, by impugned order, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.5,75,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent/APSRTC.

7. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.1 & 2, there is no appearance for them. As per the cause title, it is stated that the 3rd respondent is not necessary party to the present appeal.

8. Perused the record.

9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto. To substantiate the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. A perusal of the evidence of RW.1 would show that he has deposed in tune with averments made in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the evidence of RW.1 cannot be relied on so as to fix the negligence in the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners got examined eye witness as PW.2, who in her evidence categorically deposed that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus. Though PW.2 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove the case of the petitioners. Taking into consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal had given finding that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Apart from the same, the petitioners have also filed copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 & A2. A perusal of the contents of these documents would reveal that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. By placing reliance on the evidence of PW.2, coupled with the documentary evidence, particularly placing reliance on Exs.A1 & A2, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent/driver of the offending bus.

10. Further, it is apparent from the record that the respondents have miserably failed to discard the evidences placed by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto cannot be believed, and accordingly, the same is rejected.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is apparent from the record that the deceased was aged about 7 years as on the date of the accident. Further, copy of the birth certificate was also filed along with the claim petition, which was marked as Ex.A6. The Tribunal, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors Vs. State of Bihar (2001 ACJ 1735 (SC)), the notional income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.30,000/- per annum, and computed the compensation by awarding an amount of Rs.5,75,000/-, to be paid to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

12. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, as can be seen from the record, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration of various aspects of the matter and by following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- as compensation. Further, there is nothing on record to rebut the evidence placed by the petitioners/claimants in the case on hand.

13. In such circumstances, the contentions of the counsel for the appellant/respondents cannot be countenanced, and accordingly the same is rejected. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.