APHC010025462023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 11/2023 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KONGANA BHAVANI, W/O LATE MALLIKHARJUANA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RIO. D.NO. FF-3, LOCK NO.26, YSR COLONY, JAKKAMPUDI VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KONGANA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, (DIED) 3. KONGANA KEERTHANA, D/O LATE KONGANA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, AGED 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. FF-3, LOCK NO.26, YSR COLONY, JAKKAMPUDI VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL. 4. N PARVATHI KUMAR, S/O RAMANA, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O D.NO. 111, GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, GANDEPALLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to set aside Decree and Award dated 12.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 499 of 2017 on the file of Learned II Additional District Judge cum Motor Accidents 2 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of operation of Decree and Award dated 12.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 499 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 permit the Petitioners to withdraw the deposited amount by the Appellant credited in MV OP No. 499 of 2017 before the MACT cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble court dated 24-01-2023 passed in IA No. 1 of 2023 in MACMA No. 11 of 2023 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 12.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.499 of 2017 by the II Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.08,10,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ten Thousandand Five Hundred only) to the claimants though the claim petition was originally filed for Rs.5,35,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Kongana Bhavanain a motor accident that occurred on 26.08.2017. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, as follows: a) On 26.08.2017 at about 1.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on her father’s motorcycle from Ramavarappadu to Jakkampudi, when they reached near Rajula Bazar, Ramavarappadu Village, respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and the tyres of the offending vehicle ran over her head, resulting in her instantaneous death. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. A case in Crime No.608 of 2017 under Section 304-A IPC was registered and, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 4 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 b) It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 12 years and was studying 7th standard in Sri Vignana Vihar English Medium School, Enikepadu. She was a bright student, having secured merit certificates in various examinations. Due to her sudden death, the claimants suffered mental agony and loss of love and affection. As the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. 05. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a counter denying the material allegations and put the claimants to strict proof regarding the occurrence of the accident, negligence, age, and dependency. It was further contended that the claim is excessive. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent in driving the bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0073 and the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief? ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the 3rd petitioner is entitled to claim compensation along with other petitioner? 5 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1/father of the deceased was examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. During pendency of the claim petition, the father of the deceased died. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, this petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 3 awarding compensation of Rs.08,10,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ten Thousand And Five Hundred only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to an amount of Rs.05,10,500/- together with interest on the entire compensation amount and costs. The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation amount along with the interest on the total compensation amount and costs. The petitioner No.3 is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Since the petitioner No.3 is minor her entire share amount shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till she attains majority. The petitioners paid the Court fee on their original claim and they need to pay the Deficit Court fee on the excess amount of the compensation awarded by this Tribunal. Hence, the office is 6 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 directed to prepare the decree subject to payment of the Deficit Court fee by the petitioners. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.” 09. Aggrieved by the said award, APSRTC filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the offending vehicle negligent, and that the deceased minor herself contributed to the accident by not observing traffic rules. It is further contended that the Tribunal awarded compensation in excess of the claim amount of Rs.5,35,000/-, and that contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider/father of the deceased was not considered. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased and an eye-witness, categorically deposed regarding the manner of the accident. His testimony is corroborated by Ex.A1/FIR, Ex.A2/inquest report, Ex.A3/postmortem report, and Ex.A5/charge sheet. Nothing material was elicited in his cross- examination to discredit his version. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation of 7 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The said finding does not warrant interference. 14. With regard to quantum of compensation, the deceased was aged about 12 years as per Ex.A3/postmortem report and was studying 7th standard. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision in Chetan Malhotra vs. Ram in MAC.APP. No.554 of 2010 dated 13.05.2016 and considering Exs.A6 to A15/merit certificates, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.75,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the annual contribution to the family was taken at Rs.50,000/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘15’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 12 years, as recorded in Ex.A2/Inquest Report and Ex.A3/Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs.50,000 X 15), towards the loss of estate, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1. 15. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium. Thus, in total the Tribunal awarded total compensation to Rs.8,10,500/-. Though the claim was for Rs.5,35,000/-, the Tribunal rightly awarded the just compensation in excess of the claim, following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal 1 2017 ACJ 2700 8 VS,J MACMA No.11 of 2023 vs. Jagdish Chand2, that the Tribunal is bound to award just compensation irrespective of the claim amount. 16. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable, and requires no interference. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.04.2026 KGR 2 (2020) 4 SCC 413