APHC010127102019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TJ / MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIViL MISCFI.LANEOUS APPFAL NO: 344 OF 7niQ Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the order praying that the High and decree in M.V.O.P No.35 of 2016 dt.05.11.2018 on the file of the Court of Motor Acoidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Markapur. and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at BETWEEN:- 1. Boppuri Bala Lakshmi Janardhana Rao S/o. Samule, Aged 55 years. Residents of ST colony, Bestavaripeta Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Boppuri Victoria Rani, W/o. Bala Lakshmi years. Residents of ST colony, Bestavaripeta Village Prakasam District. Janardhana Rao, Aged 48 and Mandal, ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. T. Srinivasulu, S/o. Subbaiah Kadapa Town, YSR Kadapa District. R/o. D.N0.4/88-E-2, Nagarajupeta 2. Junapala Jaya Raju, S/o. Jakkaraiah Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Road, Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole, Prakasam District R/o. D.No.1/111, Konduru Trunk ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners:- SRI. K ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:- SRI. P. SATYA MANJULA The Court made the following Judgment: // / // * APHC010127102019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 344/2019 0:^0 [3333] Between: 1.BOPPURI BALA LAKSHMI JANARDHANA RAO, , AGED 55 RESIDENTS OF ST COLONY, BESTAVARIPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT) 2.BOPPURI VICTORIA RANI, , W/0 BALA LAKSHMI JANARDHANA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, BESTAVARIPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DISTRICT) YEARS RESIDENTS OF ST COLONY, PRAKASAM ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.T SRINIVASULU, S/0 SUBBAIAH, R/0. D.N0.4/88-E-2, NAGARAJUPETA, KADAPATOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 2.JUNAPALA JAYA RAJU, S/0 JAKKARAIAH, R/0 D.NO.1/111, KONDURU VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 3.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, , NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRUNK ROAD, NELLORE BUS STAND, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. KAN AN DA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PSATYAMANJULA 2. The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the impugned award, dated 05.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,24,500/- towards total compensation to the claimants, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- payable by respondent No.3, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are driver and owner of the crime vehicle 2. and Respondent No.3 is Insurance Company. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 3. they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: 4. a). The petitioners are parents of B. Vivekavardhana Rao (herein after will be referred as deceased). On 01.12.2014 at 4.00 a.m., the deceased started on his Pulsor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 27 K 9956 to go to Giddalur to catch a bus at Giddalur to go to Kurnool. When he reached near Santhinagar Village on Giddalur - Besthavaripeta State High Way at 4-45 a.m., a tanker was proceeding in front of the motor bike of the deceased and the driver of the tanker suddenly applied brakes and stopped the same on the middle of the road. As the deceased is proceeding behind the said tanker lorry and as there_wa=-^*'ow fall, the 3 deceased dashed on the back side of the iron rod of the tanker lorry, as a result of which, he fell on the road, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The police have registered as case in Crime No.151 of 2015 under Section 304-AIPC as against the driver of the tanker lorry bearing 04 Y 6516. No.AP 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained filed written statement wherein the besides contending that the driver of offending vehicle ex parte and Respondent No.3 petition averments were denied was not holding any driving license at the time of alleged accident. The 2"^^ respondent knowingly about the same handed thereby violated Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle over the vehicle to the 1®* respondent Rules. The deceased wearing helmet and due to his negligence the accident occurred. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Thereby, the 3 who in a hurry mood drove the motor bike without rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and with costs. prays to dismiss the petition 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following iissues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased Boppuri Vivek Vardhan Rao died road traffic accident held on 01.12.2014 at about 4-45 near Santhi Nagar Village on Giddalur - Besthawaripe State High Way, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 04 Y 6516? due to a.m., 4 2. Whether the deceased is aged about 27 years and he used to earn Rs. 15,000/- p.m., accident? as guest lecturer as on the date of 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization towards compensation? If, so. from whom? 4. To what relief? During the course of 7. enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the 1^* was examined as PW1 and got petitioner who is father of the deceased marked Ex.A1 to A13. One B. Bennaiah was examined as PW2 who witnessed the said accident and PW3 is the coiiege principal. On behalf of the respondent No.3 no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 8. The Tribunal having considering the evidence petitioners, as well as, the respondents, have adduced by the come to a finding that the 1 respondent applied sudden breaks of the offending signals and as there was vehicle without any a snow fall, the deceased could not observe the vehicle and hit it, in result of which, he died. Unless there is no considerable speed, the deceased must not sustain injuries and the death would not be occurred spontaneously and held that contributed 25 % in causing the accident as he was not and drove the bike with considerable speed and 75°/ the side of respondent No.1 in causing the accident. the deceased has wearing helmet I b was assessed on 5 Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the 9. Tribunal, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month which comes to Rs.84,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses since he is bachelor, which comes to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.84,000/- / 2). Taking into consideration of the age of the parents of the deceased fixed the average age of the deceased at 47 years and applied multiplier of 13 which comes to Rs.5,46,000/- (Rs.42,000/- x 13). The Tribunal assessed the contribution from the side of the deceased in causing the accident as 25% and after deducting the same awarded Rs.4,09,500/-. Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, Rs.4,42,500/- towards compensation to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents herein has 11. supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Now the point for consideration is: 12. ‘Whether the award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.4,24,500/-, after deducting 25% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, is on reasonable basis?”,- 6 ■ s 13. Point:- Admittedly, PW1 who is the father of the deceased was not an eye witness to the said accident. According to PW2 who is an eye witness to the said accident who was resident of same village has deposed that while the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike, the foregoing tanker lorry driver applied sudden breaks without giving any signals and stopped the lorry on the middle of the road, as such the deceased hit the lorry, fell on the road and died on the spot. He further deposed that at the time of accident, there was snow fall and there was no clear vision of the road. It is also a fact that PW2 is one of the witnesses for prosecution in Ex.A5 charge sheet. Considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.AI to A5, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the 1 respondent, the Tribunal has held that unless there is no considerable the deceased must not have sustained grievous injuries and must However, speed not have died spontaneously and thereby, have attributed 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the said accident. This Court is also of the opinion that admittedly it is for the deceased to maintain a distance while driving the vehicle and as the deceased has failed to maintain the said distance, the deceased has also towards the accident and if at all the deceased has maintained the distance and has also maintained speed in driving the contributed 7 said motor bike, the deceased must have avoided the said accident. As such, the contributory negligence of 25% which is attributed as against the deceased in causing the said accident need not be interfered and the same has become final. Now, coming to the quantum, the deceased was aged about 27 years as per Ex.A2 and Ex.AS i.e.. Inquest report and Postmortem Report and as well Ex.AIO which is copy of study certificate of Commerce which in fact is not in dispute. Though the petitioners claimed that the deceased is earning Rs.15,000/- by working as part time lecturer and got examined PW3 Principal of the Raviteja B.Ed. College, B.V.Peta. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7000/- per month. As the 14. deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident, after 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses in terms of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation'^, then his monthly income would be Rs.3500/-. The deceased is also entitled for addition of 40% towards his future prospects which comes to Rs.1400/-. Accordingly, the notional income per month would be Rs.4900/-, which comes to Rs.58,800/- (Rs.4,900 x 12) per annum . As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Case (supra), if the multiplier of ‘l^s applied since the 2009 ACJ 1298 8 deceased was aged about 27 years, the total loss of dependency to Rs.9,99,600/- comes (Rs.58,800/- X 17). If 25% is deducted towards contributory negligence of the deceased, compensation towards loss of dependency is Rs.7,49,700/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, however, failed to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium to the parents of the deceased petitioners herein. In total, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.8,44,700/- who are (Rs.7,49,700/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs.80,000/-). 15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,09,500/- Amounts now enhanced by this Court Rs.7,49,700/- 1. Loss of Dependency (After deducting 25% towards contributory negligence) Loss of consortium to 1^^ petitioner. Loss of consortium to 2^*^ petitioner. Funeral Expenses 2. Rs.40,000/- 3. Rs.40,000/- 4. Rs. 15,000/- Rs.4,24,500/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs.8,44,700/- Total Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amount of compensation now enhanced : Rs.4,24,500/- ; Rs.4,20,200/- § Amount of compensation now awarded : Rs.8,44,700/- 9 In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,44,700/- from Rs.4,25,500/- 16. with interest at 7.5% RA. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // ^ SECTION OFFICER To, it i.‘\ Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI. K ANANDA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Prasesh Amaravathi. 5. Two C.D Copies. at nm HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 344 OF 2019 || 23SEf2(l25 . Current Section . ^ m 60 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED APHC010127102019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TJ B MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA jyjOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI MH- 344 OF 2019 BETWEEN:- 1. Boppuri Bala Lakshmi Janardhana Rao, S/o. Samule, Aged 55 years, Residents of ST colony, Bestavaripeta Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Boppuri Victoria Rani, W/o. Bala Lakshmi Janardhana . , Rao, Aged 48 years. Residents of ST colony, Bestavaripeta Village and Mandal Prakasam District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. T. Srinivasulu, S/o. Subbaiah R/o. D.N0.4/88-E-2, Nagarajupeta Kadapa Town, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Junapala Jaya Raju, S/o. Jakkaraiah, R/o. D.No.1/111 Konduru Village Pendlimarri Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Road, Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole, Prakasam District. Company Limited, Trunk ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act praying that the High order and decree in M.V.O.P on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the N0.35 of 2016 dt.05.11.2018 . Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Markapur. and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the evidence on record and lower Court and the material upon hearing the arguments of Sri. K. Ananda Rao, for the Appellant and Sri P. Satya Manjula, for the Respondent. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Partly Allowed. That the Compensation be 2. and is hereby enhanced to at 7.5% P.A. from Rs.8,44,700/- from Rs.4,25,500/- with interest the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. That the Compensation amount shall be claimants in the 3. apportioned among the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. 4. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI. K ANANDA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. P SATYA MANJULA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court Amaravathi. 5. Two C.D Copies. of Andhra Prasesh, at HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 DECREE MACMANO. 344 OF 2019 S 2 3SE('2!)25 ?9 ^ . Current section ^ MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED