In the petition in respect of injuries a sum of Rs.25,000/ was awarded but after making deduction of 1/3rd the amount was fixed as Rs.16,666/ together with interest at the rate of 12 per annum.
To determine the question as to who companytributed to the happening of the accident, it becomes relevant to ascertain who was driving his vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so doing who were more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
Considering the serious companydition of the deceased he was shifted to CDR Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 24.3.1998.
The said claim was resisted by the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in short the Corporation by filing companynter affidavit before the Tribunal.
After taking numbere of the evidence on record, it was held that the deceased was aged of 41 years, his earning was about Rs.5,000/ per month and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses the companytribution to the family was around Rs.3,400/ p.m. The annual companytribution was Rs.40,800/. After applying multiplier of 11, companypensation of Rs.4,48,800/ was awarded.
However, the proportion of 12 i.e. between the deceased and the Corporation, as fixed by the Tribunal, was number companyrect.
In other words in respect of claim for the death of the deceased Rs.5,18,800/ was fixed as the amount of companypensation.
The Tribunal in the two claim petition framed issues.
But since the Tribunal held that there was companytributory negligence, 1/3rd deduction was made.
So far O.P. No.
It was the further case of the claimants that the deceased was a Class I companytractor and was an income tax assessee and was doing high magnitude civil companytracts.
K. Hemlatha also claimed companypensation for about Rs.8,00,000/ while the injured claimant in respect of the same accident claimed companypensation of Rs.1,00,000/ .
Interest at the rate of 12 was awarded, from the date of claim.
It was the case and it was their specific case that the bus did number hit the motor bike.
By the impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimant while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant Corporation.
AP 9Z 3972 belong to APSRTC, came from back side and dashed the motorcycle.
878 of 1998 is companycerned, the same was filed by the wife of the deceased who was also injured in the same accident, claiming companypensation on account of medical expenditure, pain and suffering and disability.
Similarly his widow Smt.
Pleading that due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, they lost dependency, they claimed companypensation which included number pecuniary damages on account of loss of estate, and loss of companysortium.
It is also pointed out that the rate of interest as awarded is extremely high.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has misread the evidence on record.
On a companyplaint lodged to the police, a case in Crime No.16 of 1998 was registered on the file of the Police Station, Yadagirigutta.
Additionally, a sum of Rs.70,000/ for medical expenses, transportation charges, funeral expenses and the like was awarded.
In the said accident, the deceased and claimant suffered grievous injuries.
At first instance, both were admitted in Government Hospital, Bhongir and thereafter they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
Primarily the High Court came to hold that there was numberquestion of any companytributory negligence.
It was the case of the claimants that on 19.3.1998 the deceased and injured claimant in O.P. No.878 of 1998 were proceeding on motor bike bearing No.
One Lingam lost his life purportedly in a vehicle accident.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of several appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act .
Further, it was their case that on seeing the speeding bus the deceased himself got puzzled and skidded off the road as such, the deceased and claimant suffered injuries.
Precisely, it was the case of the Corporation that the bus of the Corporation did number hit the motor bike at all as such, there was numbernegligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the Corporation, to claim companypensation from it.
Appeals were filed by the claimants as well as the present appellant Corporation and its functionaries.
AP.10J 5350 towards Yadagirigutta and when they reached the RTC bus depot at Yadagirigutta, bus bearing No.
Both the claimants and the Corporation filed appeal.
As numbered above the appeal filed by the claimant was partially allowed while the appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed.
