APHC010842262015 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: 565/2021 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DUGGEMPUDI HYMAVATHI, W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, 29Y, R/O TELECOM NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. 2. DUGGAMPUDI NIKHIL REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, 21YEARS, R/O TELECOM NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. 3. DUGGAMPUDI VENKATA NITHIN REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, 20YEARS, R/O TELECOM NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE DECLARED MAJOR VIDE COURT ORDER DATE.29.11.2021 IN IA.NO.1/2021 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree in MV OP NO.29 of 2013 dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 4701 OF 2015 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 167 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order and Decree dated 25-11-2014 in M.V.O.P No. 29 OF 2013 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 4758 OF 2015 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 of the order and Decree in MV OP NO.29 of 2013 dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur District including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA. 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 declare the Petitioners2 &3/Respondents No 2&3 as majors in the MACMA SR. 36120 of 2015 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 2 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 permit may be pleased to permit to the petitioners2"d & 3rd respondents/ to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the appellant as per the order dated 14-10-2015 passed in passed in MACMA MP No. 4578 of 2015 in MACMA. SR.No. 36120 of 2015and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.565 of 2021 JUDGMENT:- 1. Questioning the order dated 25.11.2024 in MVOP No.231 of 2013, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, the present appeal is preferred by APSRTC as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, apart from raising various other grounds. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the claim petition. 3. The petitioners (wife and children of the deceased) filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- on account of the death of Venkat Reddy (herein after referred to as the deceased) in the accident that occurred on 17.04.2012 due to the negligence of driver of APSRTC bearing Registration No.AP28Z944. 4. It was the case of the petitioners that on 17.04.2012, the deceased was proceeding to Narasaraopet on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP7D 4396, when he reached Hariyali Petrol Bunk, the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was admitted in Susmitha Ortho and Trama Care Hospital, Narasaraopert, later he was referred to Krishna Institute of Medical Science Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. It was further case of the petitioners that three (03) major surgeries were conducted to his lungs, liver and to his both legs. While undertaking treatment, the deceased succumbed injuries on 18.05.2012. A case was registered against the driver of the offending bus and 4 the same was investigated into by the police. Later charge sheet was filed against the driver of RTC bus. It was the case of the petitioners that the deceased was running Lakshmi Narasimha Wines at Boyapalem Village, Yadapallpadu Mandal, Guntur District. Apart from the same, the deceased had agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.5.00 and was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. In view of the sudden of the deceased the petitioners lost their source of income apart from love and affection, as such they approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments made in the claim petition. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC Bus and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as such the respondent contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was inter alia contended that the claim made by the petitioners was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, they have examined PW-1 to 3 and marked documents in Exs.A1 to A13. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by impugned order partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.12,50,100/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the said award, the appellant/APSRTC preferred appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents. 8. Perused the material available on record. 5 9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and there was no negligence on the driver of the offending bus. In order to substantiate the said contention, the appellant/APSRTC neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence. On the contrary, it was the specific case of the petitioners that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. In order to prove the said contention, the petitioners have examined one Mr.Dasari Anand Kumar, who was the eye witness to the accident as PW-2. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 would to go show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of driver of the offending bus. He specifically deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was going ahead of him and then the bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. By placing reliance on the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Though PW-2 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference and accordingly it is held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus and the contention of the appellant in this regard is rejected. 10. Further the counsel for the appellant would also submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and the Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.84,000/- per annum despite no material was placed by the petitioners before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimants would submit that the petitioner was engaged in liquor business and 6 was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. In support of the said contention, the counsel for the claimants would place release on Ex.A8 and A9 Income Tax receipts filed by the deceased for the assessment period 2011-12 and 2012-13. No doubt the Income Tax returns were filed to show the income of the deceased as Rs.4,59,620/-, but as rightly observed by the Tribunal that the same cannot be taken into consideration as the said income was derived from doing liquor business by the deceased. 11. The reason for giving such a finding was that the license to run liquor business was granted for a period of two (02) years and therefore the same cannot be treated as regular income of the deceased. In those circumstances, after considering the pleadings and evidence placed by the petitioners, Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.84,000/- per month. Though the counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the same is excessive, this Court does not find any force in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant. 12. During coursing of hearing, the counsel for the claimants would submit that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the heads of consortium and future prospects, thereby the Tribunal did follow the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi”1. A perusal of the record would show that no amount was awarded under the said heads as contended by the counsel for the claimants. Accordingly, the compensation that is payable to the petitioner is computed as under:- 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 7 13. In the circumstances, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as above. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed. 14. Further, the appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization within two (02) months. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 01.05.2026 DR S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1 Net Annual Income Rs.7,000 x 12 = 84,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 37 years) Rs.33,600/- (i.e., 40% of the income) 3 TOTAL INCOME Rs.1,17,600/- 4 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3th) Rs.39,200/- 5 Total annual loss of dependency Rs.78,400/- 6 Multiplier of 156 for the age 37 years Rs.11,76,000/- = (78,400 x15) 7. Medical Bills Rs.2,50,100/- 8. 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.15,76,100/- 8 169 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.565 of 2021 Date: 01.05.2026 U DR