DEPOT MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAMISETTY KOTESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.A.No,695 of 1991 is an appeal preferred by the Depot Manager, Sathupalli Depot and the General Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning the award of compensation of Rs.5,02,895.00 with interest at 12 per cent in favour of the first respondent while C.M.A.No.843 of 1991 is preferred by the new India Assurance Company Limited in respect of the same award, disowning the composite negligence of the drivers.

(2.) The facts are summarized briefly. On the fateful day i.e., 28-4-1990 one Ramisetti Koteswar Rao, first respondent in both the appeals, was travelling in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation bus AEZ 4215 being driven by its driver, the second respondent, to go. to Sathupally from Khammam. When the bus reached Hanumathanda near Kallur, a lorry bearing No.MCU 2167 was found parked facing towards Kallur. The driver of the bus was driving at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and as the bus reached the spot where the accident took place the bus was running on the extreme left side of the road while passing the lorry, MCU 2167. The driver of the lorry, third respondent, in a careless manner has suddenly started the lorry which was parked on the edge of the road and entered the main road, due to which act the lorry dashed on the left side back portion of the bus. Unfortunately the first respondent was resting his left hand on the window sill at that time and has hand was severed and fell in the bus. The first respondent attributing negligence on the part of both the drivers claimed in all compensation of Rs.7,00,000.00.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 who is aged about 45 years at that time employed as an Engineering Supervisor in Jaggaiahpct Branch of the Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited and is getting a salary of Rs.4,500.00 per month. He also examined P.Ws.2 to 6 and marked Exs.A.l to A.52 P.W.5 was also sitting in the same row in the bus in which P.W.1 was sitting. He also supported P.W.1 stating that due to the negligence of both the drivers, the accident occurred. The second respondent, driver of the bus, alone was examined- The driver of the lorry did not come into the box. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the certified copies of FIR in crime No.16/90 and the charge sheet respectively filed against the driver of the RTC bus. Exs.A.3 and A.4 arc the certified copies of panchanamas. Taking into consideration of these documents, coupled with the oral evidence, the Tribunal has rightly in our view come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers.