APHC010248272022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 219, 220 & 221 OF 2022 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.219 of 2022: 1. CHINTA CHANDRAIAH, S/O CHINTA DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ENGINEERING WORK, R/O C. BELAGAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (HIRER). NOW PRESENT ADDRESS, RTC HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, VIJAYAWADA. 2. PATIL HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O P. SESHA REDDY, HINDU, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE BUS, BEARING NO. AP. 21 TZ 3249, R/O D.NO. 4-97/6, BALAJI NAGAR, STANTANPURAN-R, KURNOOL. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL. POLICY NO. 0511003115P105839017 VALID FROM 21.08.2015 TO 20.08.2016. 4. G MADDILETI, S/O G. BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE BUS, R/O H.NO. 10-55/A, KYATHUR VILLAGE, ALAMPUR MANDAL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. …RESPONDENT(S): Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2012: 1. M. VENKATESWARA RAO, , S/O M. VIJAYA SUNDARA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, TRALLEY ACCESSORIES ENGINEERING, AND WELDING WORKSHOP, 2 2. SMT. M. SHIVA PARVATHI., W/O M. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, BOTH ARE R/O D.NO. 1A-1, NEAR MONDIKATTALA VAGU, KURNOOL ROAD, KODUMUR POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (HIRER). NOW PRESENT ADDRESS, RTC HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, VIJAYAWADA. 2. PATIL HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O P. SESHA REDDY, HINDU, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE BUS, BEARING NO. AP. 21 TZ 3249, R/O D.NO. 4-97/6, BALAJI NAGAR, STANTANPURAN-R, KURNOOL. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL. POLICY NO. 0511003115P105839017 VALID FROM 21.08.2015 TO 20.08.2016. 4. G MADDILETI, S/O G. BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE BUS, R/O H.NO. 10-55/A, KYATHUR VILLAGE, ALAMPUR MANDAL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. …RESPONDENT(S): Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022: 1. KUM. CHINTA SUREKHA,, D/O CHINTA CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER CHINTA CHANDRAIAH, S/O CHINTA DURGA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O C. BELAGAL, ENGINEERING WORKING, KURNOOL ROAD, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 3 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (HIRER). NOW PRESENT ADDRESS, RTC HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, VIJAYAWADA. 2. PATIL HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O P. SESHA REDDY, HINDU, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE BUS, BEARING NO. AP. 21 TZ 3249, R/O D.NO. 4-97/6, BALAJI NAGAR, STANTANPURAN-R, KURNOOL. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL. POLICY NO. 0511003115P105839017 VALID FROM 21.08.2015 TO 20.08.2016. 4. G MADDILETI, S/O G. BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE BUS, R/O H.NO. 10-55/A, KYATHUR VILLAGE, ALAMPUR MANDAL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. …RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the order of the I- Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool passed in M.V.O.P.No.82/2013 dated 20.04.2021 the appellant Counsel for the Appellant: KALANGI SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V VEERABHADRA CHARY 2. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 4 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the orders of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Kurnool (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.82, 83 and 133 of 2017 dated 20.04.2021. 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.219 of 2022 is preferred by the claimant, by name Chinta Chandraiah (hereinafter called as “the injured No.1”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the hirer, owner, insurer, and driver of the Bus bearing No.AP 21 TZ 3249 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 is preferred by the claimants, who are parents of one M.Keerthi (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 5 5. M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022 is preferred by the claimant, by name Chinta Surekha (hereinafter called as “the injured No.2”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the Tribunal is that: i). On 28.05.2016 at about 09.00 a.m., while the injured No.1 being rider along with injured No.2 and deceased proceeding in a motorcycle from Kodumur to C.Belagal Village, when they reached near Tahsildhar Office of Kodumur village, the crime bus driven by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle, resulted the injured Nos.1 and 2 received grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. ii). Immediately after the incident, the injured No.1 was shifted to Apple Hospital, Kurnool, where he underwent surgery and spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges. 6 iii). The injured No.2 was taken treatment in NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad, wherein she underwent surgery and her right knee was amputated and her parents spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges. iv). The deceased was aged about 12 years by the dated of incident and the claimants concerned lost their only daughter. v). The claimants in all the petitions, claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively against the hirer, owner, insurer, and driver of the said crime bus. 7. The respondent No.1/APSRTC/hirer filed counter denying the averments in the petitions and pleaded that as per the terms and condition of the agreement between the hirer and owner, the owner alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants; that the insurer of the crime bus is liable to indemnify the owner, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim petitions against this respondent. 7 8. The respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petitions and pleaded that the driver of the crime bus is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the injured No.1, but not driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed by the respective claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The respondent No.4/driver filed counter in M.V.O.P.133 of 2017 alone, which was adopted by respondent No.2/owner, denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, but not 4th respondent and thereby, prays to dismiss the claim petition against these respondents. 10. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition? 2.Whether the petitioner/s is/are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 8 3.To what relief?” 11. During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.82 of 2017, on behalf of the claimant/injured No.1, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and X.1 to X.4 were exhibited. In M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2017, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. In M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2017, on behalf of the claimant/injured No.2, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3/insurer, in the all the petitions, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. None were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.1/APSRTC. 12. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by the 4th respondent, held that claimants in all the petitions are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,36,000/-, Rs.5,15,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of 9 realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 4, for the injuries sustained by injured Nos.1 and 2 as well death of the deceased in the accident. 13. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the claimants in the respective petitions for enhancement of compensation. 14. Heard Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel representing Smt.Kalangi Sumalatha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri Gopinadh Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/APSRTC and Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer. 15. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation to the claimants, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the 10 material on record in right perspective calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeals have no merits and liable for dismissal. 17. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased as well injuries sustained by injured Nos.1 and 2 in the incident, involvement of the crime bus, rash, and negligent driving of the same by the 4th respondent in causing the incident and that no appeal was preferred by the owner and insurer against the findings of the Tribunal. 18. Now, the only point that arises for determination in all the appeals is “whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 19. POINT in M.A.C.M.A.No.219 of 2022: As per the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.3 wound certificate, the injured No.1 sustained three grievous injuries. By considering the said aspect, the Tribunal rightly 11 awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. 20. It is not in dispute that on perusal of Ex.A.5 coupled with Ex.A.7, the injured No.1 is entitled an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- towards medical expenses. Furthermore, as per the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.X.1 and X.2, the injured No.1 underwent two surgeries for the injuries sustained in the accident. By considering the said aspect, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of earnings as well Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. 21. More so, as per the testimony of P.W.2, due to the injuries sustained by the injured No.1, he is suffering from shortening of right leg, due to which he is not in a position to do heavy physical activities, thereby, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities to future life. 12 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Tribunal by considering the material on record and by following the catena of pronouncements of Apex Court, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the injured No.1, which requires no interference of this Court. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 23. POINT in M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2022: It is not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was aged about 13 years and studying 6th standard. By considering the same and following a pronouncement of Apex Court in Kishna Gopal v. Lal1, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum and determined the loss of earnings at Rs.4,50,000/- by applying suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased. 24. Further, the Tribunal by following the renowned pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National 1 2013 CJ (SC) 13 Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, thereby, the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants, which requires no interference of this Court. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 25. POINT in M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022: As per the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.3 wound certificate, the injured No.2 sustained grievous injuries and her right leg below knee was also amputated. But, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, in the considered opinion, which requires interference of this Court by awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering in view of the trauma underwent by claimant for the injuries sustained in the accident, resulted amputation of her right leg below the knee. 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 14 26. It is not in dispute that on perusal of Ex.A.5, the injured No.2 is entitled an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards medical expenses. Furthermore, the Tribunal by considering Ex.A.6 taxi bills as well duration of treatment undergone by the injured No.2, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of transportation, extra-nourishment, and attendant charges. 27. As stated supra, it is not in dispute that, due to the injury sustained in the accident, the right leg below the knee of injured No.2 was amputated. The Tribunal by considering the age of the injured No.2 and percentage of loss of earnings as well applying proper multiplier, rightly arrived an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- under the head of loss of earnings due to partial permanent functional disability. 28. Moreover, the Tribunal by considering the said functional disability also awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities to future life as well Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. 15 29. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation only under the head of pain and suffering from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,0000/-, thereby, the compensation entitled by the injured No.2 is arrived at Rs.10,00,000/- from Rs.9,00,000/-. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 30. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2017 warrants interference only regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the injured No.2. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/injured No.2/claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022 is liable to be considered partly and the remaining appeals in M.A.C.M.A.No.219 and 220 of 2022 are liable to be dismissed. 31. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.219 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16 32. The M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. The M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022 is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 4. The respondents are directed the deposit entire compensation amount within thirty (30) days from the date of this Judgement before the Tribunal. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 15.07.2025 Krs 17 201 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.219, 220 and 221 of 2022 ( Common Judgment ) DATE: 15.07.2025 Krs