AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—This appeal is disposed of finally after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on merits.
The appellant APSRTC is aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal in favour of the respondents-claimants and two grounds put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the bus belonged to the appellant corporation was not involved in the accident and secondly the quantum of, compensation is on the higher side.
Elaborating the above submission, learned counsel argued that the deceased traveling in a Hero Honda motorcycle sustained fatal injuries on account of a tempo, which overtook a lorry, hit the Hero Honda motorcycle driven by the deceased and therefore there was no involvement of the APSRTC bus and a false case has been registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus. To substantiate the above contention, the APSRTC has also examined RW-1 before the tribunal and as such, the tribunal was wrong in putting the blame on the driver of the appellant corporation bus.
As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel argued that it is on the higher side particularly with regard to the income taken by the tribunal.
To counter the above argument, learned counsel for the claimants argued that except the oral say of RW-1, there is no other evidence in support of the stand taken by the corporation. On the other hand, on behalf of the claimants, not only an eye witness was examined as PW-2 but the document produced also corroborate the stand taken by the claimants that the accident was caused by APSRTC bus driven by the driver concerned. If at ail, the bus belonged to APSRTC was not involved in the accident, the corporation authorities could have taken up the matter and ensured that a ''B'' report is issued on the driver of the bus, which is not the case. As far as the quantum is concerned, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and income taken is also reasonable
Having heard thus, I find from the records produced that except the oral say of RW-1, there is no other evidence to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant.
On the other hand, the claimants have supported their oral evidence by producing the FIR as per Ex. P1, charge sheet. Ex. P2 and mahazar Ex. P3 apart from the IMV report Ex. P6 and sketch map Ex. P7. Thus, the evidence on the whole taken together does not give the impression that the APSRTC bus was not involved in the accident. But on the other hand, these documents in particular point out to the driver of the APSRTC bus as the person responsible for causing the accident. Moreover, the appellant has not been able to show that the driver of the bus has been acquitted in the criminal court.
Coming to the compensation part of the case, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month although the claimants had mentioned a higher amount as the income of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation awarded under various heads also is not on the higher side.
In the result, the appeal lacks merit and it. is dismissed. Amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.