APHC010331252020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 465/2020 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 426/2021 MACMA No.465 of 2020 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, OWNER OF BUS AP 07 A 0311, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, (PRESENT ADDRESS. RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,, APSRTC, RTC BUS-STAND COMPLEX, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. CHELAMCHELAM LINGAMMA, W/O.VEERANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O.NEAR ELECTRICITY OFFICE, BACK OF FCI GODOWN, YANDI COLONY, TRIPURANTHAKAM (V,P AND M), NOW AT SIVAPURAM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. POTLURI SUNDARAIAH, S/O.YESURATHANM, AGED 12 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP.BY MATERNAL GRAND- FATHER YAKASIRI ANKALU, S/O.BRAHMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O.NEAR ELECTRICITY OFFICE, BACK OF FCI GODOWN, YANDI COLONY, TRIPURANTHAKAM(V,P AND M), NOW AT SIVAPURAM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. POTLURI MALLIKARJUNA, S/O.YESURATHANM, AGED 9 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP.BY MATERNAL GRAND- FATHER YAKASIRI ANKALU, S/O.BRAHMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O.NEAR ELECTRICITY OFFICE, BACK OF FCI GODOWN, YANDI COLONY, TRIPURANTHAKAM(V,P 2 AND M), NOW AT SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. VELAGATURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, APSRTC BUS DRIVER, PONNURU DEPOT, R/O NUZENDLA V ILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2020 passed in M.V.O.P No. 9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to allow the petition to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants herein in pursuance of order pared in IA No. 1/2020 in MACMA 465/2020 dated 25/11/2020 in M V 0 P 9/2018 on the file of MACT-CUM -VIII Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam (Dt) and pass such other order Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY MACMA No.426 of 2021 Between: 1. CHELAMCHELAM LINGAMMA, W/O VEERANJANEYULU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O NEARBECTRICITLI OFFICE BACK OF FCI GODOWN YANDI COLONYITRIPURAPTHAKARK(V, P AND 3 . M)LNOW AT SIVAPURAM VILLAGE VINUKONDA MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. POTLURI SUNDARAIAH, S/O YESURATHANRA,AGED145.YRS. 3. POTLURI MALLIKARJUNA, SIO YESUFATHAIRN- AGE4 YRS ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CORPRATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, OWNER OF BUS AP 07 A 0311, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE (PRESENT ADDRESS RTC HOUSE PNBS VIJAYAWADA) 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RTC BUSSTAND COMPLEX,- ANGALE-,PRAKDSARN 'DISTRICT. 3. VELAGATURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS APSRTC BUS DRIVER ,PONNURU DEPOT ,R/O NUZENDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No.9/2018, dated 06.03.2020 ,on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole to the extent of rejecting their clime Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.465 of 2020 AND MACMA No.426 of 2021 JUDGMENT:- 1. As these two appeals arise out of order dated 06.03.2020 in MVOP No.9 of 2018, on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. MACMA No.465 of 2020 was filed by APSRTC stating that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. Whereas MACMA No.426 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner seeking to enhance the compensation as the same is not inconsonance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi”1 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother Ankamma was coming back home in Rickshaw after fishing in 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 5 Medapi Tank. When she reached Ganapavaram Cold Storage on Guntur-Kurnool Highway, offending RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP07Z 0311 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Rickshaw from behind. As a result of which the deceased died on the spot and two other persons sustained bleeding injuries. A case in Crime No.101 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the offending bus, on the file of Tripuranthakam Police Station. The petitioners are the children of the deceased. It was further case of the petitioner that the deceased was hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was earning an amount of RS.10,000/- per month by selling honey, fishing and also attending to coolie works. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial support, love and affection. It is further contended that as the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent/driver of the offending bus, the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by them. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the sons of Yasurantam, where as the name of the husband of the deceased was mentioned as 6 Y.Srinivasulu. It was further stated that as the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 left the company of the deceased and are living with their grandfather, they cannot be treated as dependents as such they is not liable to receive compensation. With the above pleadings, the respondent claimed that it is not entitled to pay any compensation. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent/driver of the offending bus stating that the bus was going slowly and when it applied sudden break, the Rickshaw dashed the bus from behind and thereby the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the Rickshaw. As such, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent/driver. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, they have examined their grandfather Y.Ankalu as PW-1 and filed documentary evidence and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1 and no documentary evidence was placed. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.11,82,000/- under various conventional heads in favour of 7 petitioner Nos.2 & 3 while dismissing claim made by the petitioner No.1 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both the claimants and the respondents approached this Court by way of the present appeals. 8. Heard counsel for APSRTC and counsel appearing for claimants. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the APSRTC would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of rider of tricycle/rickshaw. In order to prove the same, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1. 11. A perusal of the evidence of RW-1 would go to show that the bus was going slowly and when it applied sudden break, the rider of the tricycle/rickshaw dashed the bus from behind and thereby the accident was occurred. As such he would submit that there was no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent/driver. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the petitioners that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent and the bus came in rash and negligence manner at high speed and dashed the tricycle/rickshaw from behind. In 8 order to prove the contention of the petitioners/claimants, they have filed copies of FIR and charge sheet which were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. A perusal of the contents of the said documents would go to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. As already noted supra, except reiterating the averments made in counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has not stated anything to prove its contention. In such circumstances, the contention of the APSRTC cannot be accepted. In view of the categorical evidence placed by them. Therefore, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. 12. The counsel for APSRTC would further submit that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation was excessive and the Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month especially in the absence of any record placed before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month by selling honey, and apart from the same, she was also attending coolie works and fishing activities. In order to substantiate the same, the father of the deceased was examined as PW-1, who deposed in similar 9 lines with that of the averments made in the claim petition. Though, PW-1 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence and the same remained un- shattered. Though, the claimants have contended that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal disbelieved the same and fixed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month by taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and computed the compensation by awarding an amount of Rs.11,82,000/- under various conventional heads. This Court does not see any illegality in so far as fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month is concerned. Further, as rightly contended by the counsel for the claimants, while computing the compensation, the Tribunal did not adhere to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi”2 inasmuch, nothing was awarded under the heads of consortium and future prospects. 13. Further, the same is apparent on the face of the record and the same is not disputed by the counsel appearing for 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 10 APSRTC. In the circumstances, this Court undertakes the exercise of computing the compensation i.e., receivable by the petitioners as under: 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not find any merit in the appeal filed by APSRTC, accordingly MACMA No.465 of 2020 is dismissed. S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1 Net Annual Income Rs.6,000 x 12 = 72,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 34 years) Rs.28,800/- (i.e., 40% of the income) 3 TOTAL INCOME Rs.1,00,800/- 4 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3th) Rs.33,600/- 5 Total annual loss of dependency Rs.67,200/- 6 Multiplier of 16 for the age 34 years Rs.10,75,200/- (67,200 x 16) 7 Conventional Heads 1. Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs.(40,000 x 3) = 1,20,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.12,25,200/- 11 15. Further, the appeal preferred by the claimants in MACMA No.426 of 2021 is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.11,82,000/- to Rs.12,25,200/-. Further, the APSRTC is directed to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.12,25,200/- together with interest @ 7.5% within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. In the result, MACMA No.465 of 2020 is dismissed and MACMA No.426 of 2021 is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 01.05.2026 DR 12 168 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.465 of 2020 AND MACMA No.426 of 2021 Date: 01.05.2026 U DR