AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radhakrishna Rao, J.—In an accident that took place on 6-3-1987, the deceased Gayapu Srinivasa Reddy, an agriculturist and businessman in fertilisers died. Alleging that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AAZ 1784 by its driver, an application has been filed by the claimants, who are the wife, parents and children of the deceased, u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 514 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That application was considered by the lower Tribunal on merits with reference to the evidence adduced by both parties, viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-8. Ultimately the learned Additional District Judge, duly taking into account the direct evidence of P.W.2, who is the driver of the motor cycle and the F.I.R., Ex.A-5, inquest report Ex.A-6, M.V.I. Report Ex.A-7 and post-mortem certificate Ex.A-8 and other attendant circumstances, held that both the driver of the motor cycle P.W.2 and also the driver of the APSRTC Bus were responsible for the accident, and conseuqently he held that the driver of the bus was guilty of 50% negligence and P.W.2, the driver of the motor cycle was guilty of 50% negligence at the time of the accident. After considering the income potentiality of the deceased, the lower tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 77,500/-. Having been dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower tribunal, the claimants filed C.M.A. No.1314 of 1989. The A.P.S.R.T.C. also filed an appeal, C.M.A. No.83 of 1989 contending that having noticed that the bus was on the correct side in the road margin and the dead body of the deceased was on the middle of the road and that it was mentioned in Ex.A-6 that due to applying of brakes by the driver of the motor cycle the motor cycle took a turn as a result of which the deceased fell on the middle of the road and having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 and having held that the deceased was also negligent in not holding the motor cycle properly, the lower tribunal gravely erred in holding that it can be presumed that the driver of the bus was guilty of 50% negligence. It is also contended on behalf of the A.P.S.R.T.C. that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower tribunal on different counts is on the high side. It is also contended-that the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was not at fault and it is P.W.2 who is alone responsible for the accident and so the Corporation is not liable for the compensation.
As seen from the cause title given in the award and decree of the lower Tribunal, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus is not made a party. P.W.2, the driver of the motor cycle, is the main witness examined on behalf of the claimants. He deposed that there is a turning at Elukaturti, that after he took the turn and proceeded to some distance he found a bus coming in the opposite direction in a high speed and that he sighted it when it was at a distance of about 100 metres from him, that he blew horn and took the motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road that the driver of the bus without caring for the motor cycle greard past the motor cycle and that the deceased was thrown of the motor cycle on to the right and that the front tyre of the bus ran over the deceased. Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the report given by P.W.2. Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of the inquest report. The facts mentioned in the inquest report indicate that the dead body of the deceased was in the middle of the road, and in column No.8 of Ex. A-6 it is noted that the dead body of the deceased was lying with its head towards west on the road and the feet towards east on the road and that the bus was to the south on the road and the motor cycle was on the north on the road. Thus a close scrutiny of this inquest report would indicate that what has been stated by P.W.2 is not the correct version. If the version given by P.W.2 is to be accepted, the dead body of the deceased would not have been found on the middle of the road. When there is a curve within a short distance to the coming vehicle, generally, to negotiate the curve the driver of a heavy vehicle will slow down the vehicle. From the circumstances it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was not having an effective control over the bus. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of Ex. A-6 clearly demonstrate that P.W.2 was coming at a high speed and due to applying of sudden brake the deceased fell down due to his negligence. So the reasoning given by the lower tribunal that P.W.2 did not speak the real facts that lead to the accident appears to be correct. When both the drivers of the bus and the motor cycle are having effective control over their respective vehicles, and the deceased sat carefully as a pillon rider, the death would have been avoided. Therefore, the finding of the lower tribunal apportioning the liability to 50% is correct. The driver of the bus is not made as a party. Since the driver of the bus is admittedly working in the A.P.S.R.T.C., the latter is bound by the acts of the former. It is duty of the court to find out from the available material whether there is negligence on the part of the driver and if so to what extent. Naturally each party will claim that he is not at fault. When the recitals in the earliest document coupled with the evidence of the eye witnesses is available, it is the duty of the court to draw a reasonable inference to find out who is at fault or whether both are at fault. Considering the recitals in the F.I.R. Ex.A-5, inquest report Ex.A-6, M.V.I. Report Ex.A-7 and the postmortem certificate Ex. A-8, I find that the driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 50% and the finding to that effect given by the lower tribunal is confirmed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor applies to the facts of this case and from the fact that the Corporation has not examined its driver an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Corporation, and consequently it must be held that the accident was only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The learned Judge has rightly distinguished the contention with reference to the case law and held that since the driver of the bus was not examined, an inference has to be drawn that the driver of the bus was also negligent at the time of the accident, and I see no reason to interfere with that conclusion reached by the learned Judge. It is permissible for the court to take into account the recitals in the public documents that have been filed and marked in evidence. A reading of the recitals in Ex.A-6 shows that the accident was on account of the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle and the deceased also and as already stated the driver of the bus was not examined. Therefore, the negligence can be apportioned between the drivers of the two vehicles by 50% each, as is done by the lower tribunal.
Now the next questions that falls for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged 31 years by the time of his death. He is stated to be an agriculturist and also a businessman. The claimants have also filed Ex.A-1 farmer''s pass book which shows that the deceased was having lands. They have also filed true copy of profit and loss account of M/s. Vasu Feritlizers Depot, Warrangal, which is marked as Ex.A-2 which shows that the profit to the share of the deceased for the year 1985-86 was Rs. 10,567-97. The lower tribunal after taking into account the above documents fixed the contribution of the deceased to his family per year at Rs. 8,000/- and taking into account the young age of the deceased applied the multiplier 16. The lower tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. The lower tribunal has also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The lower tribunal after fixing the liability on the respondent-Corporation to the extent of 50% awarded a total compensation of Rs. 77,500/-. Considering the age and income potentiality of the deceased, I feel that the compensation awarded by the lower tribunal is just and reasonable. The assessment of the compensation, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be either on the high side as contended by the learned counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. or on the low side as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants. In such cases, the High Court should not normally interfere. If there is complete miscalculation or misappreciation of the evidence, then alone interference can be made. But in this case the circumstances of this case does not warrant interference.
In the result, C.M.A. No.83 of 1989, preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C. as well as C.M.A. No. 1314 of 1989 preferred by the claimants are dismissed. No costs.