APSRTC Vs. CHANGANTIPATI VENKATESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Chagantipati Venkateswara Rao, was employed as Head Constable, and was working in the office of the Commissioner of Police Vijayawada. On 13-05-1995, when he was proceeding on his Moped (Lune), bearing No.A.P-16-8456 from Bandar Locks to Krishnalanka Police Station, a bus bearing No.AP-9Z 3591, owned by the APSRTC, is said to have hit the Moped from behind. Venkateswara Rao died on account of the injuries received by him. Crime No.34 of 1995 was registered against the driver of the bus, by the II Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. The wife and three minor children of late Venkateswara Rao filed M.V.O.P.No.297 of 1995 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation. Through its order dated 17-10-2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,93,824/-, and apportioned the same among the respondents/claimants. APSRTC, the appellant , filed this appeal, assailing the order passed by the Tribunal. The claimants/respondents filed cross- objections, seeking enhancement.

(2.) Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred solely on account of the carelessness on the part of the deceased, and the Tribunal had brushed aside the evidence of RW-1, the driver of the bus, without any basis. He contends that the evidence of PW-2 is doubtful and that it ought not to have been accepted. Learned counsel assails the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest. According to him, the net salary, not the gross salary, ought to have been taken into account.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects of the deceased, and the probable rise in emoluments etz. ought to have constituted the basis for computation of the compensation.