APHC010709242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 74/2017 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP BY ITS R.M., ANANTAPURAMU DIST, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BOYA THANGIM NARAYANAMMA ANATAPURAMU DIST 5 OTHERS, W/O. RAMULAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO: 26/524, LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVAPURAM, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 2. BOYA THANGIM CHENNAKESAVULU, S/O. RAMULAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO: 26/524, LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVAPURAM, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 3. T RAMESH, S/O. T. SINGARAIAH, (OWNER OF AUTO AP-02-X-3676) R/O. D. NO: 5/530-A, SHANTHINAGAR, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. (INSURER OF AP-02-X-3676) VALID FROM 08.10.2008 TO 07.10.2009) POLICY NO: 3004/55127914/00/000 5. P GAFOOR KHAN, S/O. P. KHASIM, (DRIVER OF AUTO NO: AP-02- X-3676) AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. N.S. GATE, C.K. PALLI MANDAL, 6. G SANKARAPPA, S/O. VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D. NO: 19/216, BADE SAB STREET, NEAR MOSQUE, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. (R6 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS MACMA) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.726/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuramu IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2899 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2981 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in M.V.O.P.No.726 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuramu IA NO: 3 OF 2016(MACMAMP 4378 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim order dated 08.07.2016 in MACMAMP No.2981/2016 in MACMASR No.22606/2016 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N MOHAN KRISHNA 2. S PRANATHI 3. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APSRTC”), being aggrieved by the Order and Decree, dated 18.02.2016, in Original Petition No.726 of 2011, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), wherein the petition was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, holding respondents 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation, and respondents 3 and 5, who are the APSRTC and the driver of the bus, liable to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation. 2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The Original Petition No.726 of 2011 was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of deceased Boya T.Ramulappa in a motor accident that occurred on 02.06.2009 at about 11:40 a.m. near yerragunta cross. 4. Initially, when the matter came up for admission, this Court passed orders directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the decretal amount, along with proportionate costs and interest, within a period of six weeks. On 05.01.2017, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the petition was allowed. The facts of the case germane to the issue are capsuled as under: 5. On 02.06.2009 at 11:40 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP02X3676 to go to Dharmavaram and reached near Yerragunta cross, the driver of the crime auto, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and dashed against the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10Z7150 on its right side, and the auto got turned turtle. In the meantime, another auto came on its back and dashed the turtled auto, due to 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 which the deceased died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years and was expert cultivator and earning Rs.10,000/- every month and except his income, there is no other source of income to his family and the petitioners are suffering due to his sudden demise. 6. The Dharmavaram I Town Police registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2009 against the driver of the crime vehicle for offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. 7. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1, 4 and 5 remained ex parte, while 2nd respondent filed counter, refuting the allegations made in the petition regarding the manner of the accident, age, income, occupation, death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident and further averred that the accident was occurred only due to negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10Z7150 and auto bearing No.AP02V6660, and the insurance company cannot be saddled with compensation. Further, the claim of the 2nd respondent is that the auto bearing No.AP02X3676 is not insured with it and the driver was not holding a driving license at the time of accident and there is no permit and fitness certificate issued by the concerned authority and finally prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition regarding the manner of the accident, age, income, occupation, death of the deceased. It was contended that only the insurance company and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation and that the 3rd respondent is no way concerned or connected. It was further asserted that a criminal complaint was given by the APSRTC bus driver against the driver of the auto, and that there are more than 15 passengers in the auto at the time of the accident and in which circumstances, the driver lost control over the auto and dashed the bus on its right side. 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 9. Basing on the adversaries of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the death of Boya T.Ramulappa was due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-02-X-3676 by its driver? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii. To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Auto bearing No.AP-02-X- 3676 or due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-7150? 10. To prove their respective contentions, the petitioners got examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1, RW3 and RW4 are examined and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked. 11. While answering issue No.1 along with additional issue, the Tribunal has taken note of the pleadings and also the evidence adduced by both the sides. The pleadings mentioned in the petition were considered and the Ex.A1, attested copy of FIR report, Ex.A4, attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A2, attested copy of inquest report, which goes to show that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles and are made liable for the said accident and accordingly, the issue was answered. 12. While answering issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken note of the age as 35 and while considering the income claimed at Rs.10,000/- per month, an observation was made that no independent witness was examined to prove the income. The Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum (Rs.4,000 x 12). After deducting 1/3rd portion for his personal expenses, his contribution for maintenance of the family was derived as Rs.32,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier „15‟, the compensation towards pecuniary loss was derived at Rs.4,80,000/- 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 (Rs.32,000 x 15). A sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, love and affection, loss of estate and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal in total awarded Rs.5,15,000/- towards compensation and restricted the said amount to Rs.5,00,000/- as the petition was filed for only Rs.5,00,000/-. 13. The Tribunal, however, found through the cross-examination that the Claim Petitions O.P.No.29 of 2010 and O.P.No.30 of 2010 were filed by some other claimants arising out of the same accident, and the Tribunal has awarded compensation, for which the 2nd respondent has deposited the amount before the Tribunal. 14. RW2, who is a third party, working at Hindupur APSRTC depot, deposed that he was driving the bus bearing No.AP10Z7150 from Anantapur to Puttaparthi at 11:40 a.m., and that he has stopped the bus by observing the opposite auto coming in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed right side of the bus upon which the said accident occurred causing loss of life to the present claimants. 15. RW3, is the Insurance Company has got marked Ex.B2, certified copy of the Order and Decree in O.P.No.30 of 2010. RW4 is the RTA Official and through him, Ex.B5, driving license extract of 5th respondent is marked. Upon considering the entire evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal held respondents 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation, and respondents 3 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay remaining 50% of the compensation. In the result, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, as stated supra, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 16. Heard Mr.G.Gopinath, learned counsel representing Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation/appellant, Ms.M.Devi Sreevathsa, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 and 2/claimants and Ms.A.Mahathi, learned counsel representing Ms.S.Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. 17. This Court has gone elaborately into the order passed by the Tribunal and finds no infirmity or illegality and there is no justification to this Court to interfere with the Order and Decree, dated 18.02.2016, in Original Petition No.726 of 2011, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Hence, the appeal filed by the APSRTC deserves to be dismissed. 18. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, upholding the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. In sequel to the same, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 30-04-2026 BMS