C KAMALAMMA Vs. APSRTC HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the Order dated 16-9-1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in OP No.321 of 1988.

(2.) To narrate the facts, the deceased- Chinna Swamy and another person by name Chinnaraj were proceeding on a Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TMJ 547 on the left side of the road from Chittoor to Madanapalle on 2-5-1988 and at about 5.00 p.m. of that day, they came near Bathula Banda Cross Road. At that time, the bus bearing Registration No.AEZ 2997 belonging to the respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner being driven by its Driver-RW1 and hit the motor-cycle; on account of which, the deceased as well as the pillion rider fell on the ground and immediately thereafter a lorry consisting of rig, came to the spot and on the way the injured were being shifted to hospital, the deceased breathed last and the pillion rider was taken to Vellore hospital and thereafter shifted to Salem hospital. The dependants of the deceased laid a claim before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was resisted by the respondent stating that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that the accident arose because of the rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by the deceased himself; therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation in that regard. Similarly, a claim was also made by the pillion rider in OP No.322 of 1988. Both the Original Petitions were tried together. On behalf of the claimants, 5 witnesses were examined and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1-the driver of the bus was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence plaeed before it, computed the compensation in respect of the death of the deceased at Rs.90,800/-. However, the learned Tribunal found that the accident did not arise on account of the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and, therefore, dismissed the OP No.321 of 1988 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, by order dated 16-9-1991; against which, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants- claimants submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are wholly erroneous and run counter to the evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal completely misunderstood the circumstances under which the accident had taken place and thus passed an erroneous order. The learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 5 was not properly considered and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and that the claimants are entitled for the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal.