V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1327 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of claimants, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants claiming the compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs. 21,22,000/-towards compensation on account of death of the deceased Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 03.07.2007.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

On 03.07.2007, the first petitioner along with her husband Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased', and their two daughters, were proceeding on their motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AP 7228, ridden by the deceased and they were returning after attending a dinner at the house of the friend of the deceased in 104 Area, when they reached opposite Anand Jewellers, near Shirdi Saibaba Temple at Subashnagar at about 11.00 p.m., all of a sudden one four wheel push cart containing lemons, came across their motor cycle, then the deceased tried his level best to avoid collusion, as a result, the deceased and their second daughter fell down towards Southern side of the divider on the road leading from Kancharapalem to Marripalem, whereas the first petitioner and her elder daughter fell down towards Northern side of the road, at that time, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus bearing No. AP 10Z 3780, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', belonging to second respondent, driven by first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, ran over the heads of the deceased and their second daughter, resulting which both of them died on the spot itself.

5. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the deceased Viz., Sadaram Surya Venkata Apparao, S/o.Surya Rao, died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 10Z 3780 (APSRTC Bus) driven by its driver

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents

iii. To what relief

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the claimants failed to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount.

9. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

"1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference

2. Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation as prayed for"

11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the claimants relied on the testimony of PW1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and first petitioner herein. In her evidence, she reiterated the contents of the petition as PW1. It was suggested to PW1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for APSRTC that the accident was the result of negligence of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. The said suggestion was denied by PW1. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. Another witness was examined as PW2. PW2 admits in cross examination that he is not an eye witness to the accident.

12. The first petitioner lodged a complaint before the police and the First Information Report is registered against the driver of RTC bus. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem traffic police station conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A4, fixing the liability on the driver of the RTC bus. In the charge sheet, it was clearly mentioned by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem traffic police station that "Dr.R.Naga Sankara Reddy, Assistant Professor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased would appear to have died of instantaneously due to crush injury of head and face caused injury to brain". The same is supported by Ex.A3 attested copy of Postmortem examination report. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 clearly proves that there was a negligence on the part of the first respondent i.e., driver of the RTC bus and there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who is a rider of the motor cycle, who travelled along with his wife and two daughters. Therefore, negligence of 50% is fixed on the driver of the RTC bus and there was a contributory negligence of 50% on the part of the rider of two-wheeler i.e., deceased herein.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the first respondent was acquitted in a criminal case filed against him before the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. The copy of judgment is marked as Ex.B2 through RW1. As seen from the judgment of Criminal Court, the said Court gave finding that the eye witnesses in that case are not supporting the case of the prosecution. The Criminal Court acquitted the accused, since the eye witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution and so also basing on the contradictions in between the evidence of PW1 and PW10. The finding of the Criminal Court in Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 case, cannot be taken into consideration, that too, deciding a compensation in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the victims. In a Criminal case trial, negligence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but same standard is not required in a proceeding before the Tribunal.

"The law is well settled that the acquittal of driver in a Criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not a ground to dismiss the claim application filed by the victims. Mere acquittal in a Criminal case does not lead to an automatic inference that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the standard of proof required is entirely different from Criminal Court. In Motor Accident Claims cases, preponderance of probability is the test to arrive at the conclusion regarding negligence.

The law is well settled by Apex Court in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another (2020) 13 SCC 486 [LQ/SC/2019/270 ;] and Kusum Lata and others Vs. Satbir and others (2011) 3 SCC 646 [LQ/SC/2011/345] that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a Criminal trial are not applicable in a Motor Accident Compensation cases i.e., to say "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be preponderance of probabilities and not the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".

14. As stated supra, the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 proves that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus and there is also contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler i.e., the deceased in this case. For the foregoing reasons, this Court fixed the negligence of 50% on the part of the driver of RTC bus i.e., respondent No. 1 herein, and so also remaining 50% contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler i.e., the deceased in this case.

15. The claimants, who are none other than the wife, children and parents of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs. 21,22,000/-for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident. Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of accident has been established, the Tribunal role would be to award just and fair compensation. In the present case, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus. The claimants are claiming compensation of Rs. 21,22,000/-for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident. "It is a well settled norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach" Here the first petitioner is the eye witness to the death of her husband in a road accident. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and working in Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, Visakhapatnam and earning monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-per month and contributing the same for the welfare of the family. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants failed to examine the employer of the deceased. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the accident occurred in the year 2007, in those days, an ordinary private employee, who was aged about 34 years, can easily earn Rs. 150/-per day, this Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/-per month i.e., Rs. 54,000/-per annum. The dependents on the deceased are five in number. As per the decision of Sarla Verma's case, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th income is deducted, the net income available to the dependents on the deceased is Rs. 40,500/-(54,000-13,500) per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 34 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is 16. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 6,48,000/-(40,500 x 16) is awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the maximum amount to be awarded under the conventional heads is Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 40,000/-is awarded towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner. An amount of Rs. 15,000/-is awarded towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs. 15,000/-is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, the appellants/claimants are entitled an amount of Rs. 7,18,000/-towards compensation.

16. As stated supra, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding the two-wheeler along with his wife and two daughters as pillion riders. Therefore, his contribution to the accident cannot be ruled out. Therefore, such contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is assessed at 50% and the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus is fixed at 50%. Therefore, the claimants are entitled compensation amount of Rs. 3,59,000/-from the second respondent. Accordingly, second respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,59,000/-to the claimants towards total compensation. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in MVOP No. 1327/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is set aside and the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs. 3,59,000/-towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 3,59,000/-with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. The first petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-along with accrued interest thereon, the second and third petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs. 85,000/-each along with accrued interest thereon, the fourth petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs. 50,000/-along with accrued interest thereon and the fifth petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs. 39,000/-along with accrued interest thereon. The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount after attaining majority. Until they attain majority, their share of compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank. After depositing the compensation amount along with accrued interest, the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.