APSRTC HYDERABAD Vs. P SUVARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) filed this appeal assailing the award dated 31.10.2003 in O.P. No. 2467 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under which compensation was awarded at Rs. 9,21,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The deceased-P. Sangaiah was working as a sub-staff in Andhra Bank. He was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 7,538/-, vide Ex. A. 6-salary certificate. While he was travelling on 19.06.2000 at about 9.40 a.m. on his scooter bearing registration No. AP 9S 1358 towards Ravindra Bharathi side, APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 10Z 7311 dashed the scooter. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was immediately shifted to CDR Hospital and was later shifted to Osmania General Hospital. The deceased, however, died about one hour after the accident while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital. Considering that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus the wife of the deceased along with her three minor children and parents of the deceased preferred the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation at Rs. 9,50,000/-.

(2.) The learned standing counsel for the appellant-APSRTC contended that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation worked out mutatis mutandis is liable to be reduced to the extent of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

(3.) Pw. 3 is an eyewitness for the accident. PW. 3 was a passenger in the offending bus. He claimed that he witnessed the accident and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The appellant did not choose to examine anyone to contradict the evidence of PW. 3. The First Information Report, the Case Diary and the Charge Sheet, certified copies of which are Exs. A. 1, A. 2 & A. 5, show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The overwhelming evidence adduced by the claimants has not been contraverted by the appellant. In view of the evidence of PW. 3, coupled with Exs. A. 1, A. 2 & A. 5, I agree with the contention of Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that the accident was indeed due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. I consequently reject the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-APSRTC that it is a case of contributory negligence and that the compensation payable should be determined with reference to the quantum of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.