APHC010279722019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No:921 of 2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprotation ...APPELLANT AND Chinthalapudi Shiva Parvathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 ORDER: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 14.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,19,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand only) to the petitioners therein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased C. Bhaskar Rao in a motor accident that occurred on 10.04.2011. 02. The appellant/APSRTC is the 1st respondent therein, respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.5/driver of the offending vehicle is respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 04. The case of the petitioners/claimants is briefly as follows: a) Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of deceased C. Bhaskar Rao. b) On 10.04.2011 at about 1:30 P.M., while the deceased was crossing the road in front of Railway Reservation Court on Filer House – SNC Main Road, Tirumala, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 119 of Tirupati Depot coming from Filter House side was driven by the driver in rash 3 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 and negligent manner and lost control and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries all over the body and fell on the road. The deceased was immediately shifted to Aswini Hospital, Tirumala, for treatment. Later, for better treatment he was shifted to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, and succumbed to injuries at about 6.00 P.M, while undergoing treatment. After accident, on complaint, the Station House Officer of Traffic Police Station, Tirumala, registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2011 under Section 337 of I.P.C and after death intimation, the Section of law was altered to Section 304 (A) of I.P.C., against respondent No.2 and charge sheet was filed vide C.C No.191 of 2011 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. c) The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 33 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as salesman at Vetrivel Muruga Cloths and Garments, Tirumala, and was also working at Sapthagiri Digital Photo Studio in the evening hours, as on the date of the accident. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner and they have no other source of income and they were solely dependent on the deceased. Therefore, they sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Respondent No.1/APSRTC filed a counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners and stated that on 10.04.2011, the bus was proceeding from 4 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 Rambagicha bus stand to the CRO office near APSRTC bus stand, Tirumala, which is up-gradient, and after approaching Central Reception Office at Tirumala at about 1 p.m., the bus was stopped for boarding the passengers, meanwhile, the deceased in a drunken state suddenly came to the left rear side of the bus and having touched the bus, he fell down and sustained injuries. Upon hearing the cries of the public, the driver and conductor immediately stopped the bus, provided water and shifted the deceased to Aswini Hospital. Thus, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of deceased and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus. The informant i.e., P.Chengalrayulu, who lodged the complaint before the SHO, was not present at the scene and gave a false version of the incident. It was further contended that the deceased did not suffer any crush injuries, as confirmed by the inquest and post-mortem report. It was also contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years and mentally unstable and he was beggar, without having any income to support the petitioners. Further, the income certificates presented were alleged to be fabricated. It was further contended that the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is expensive and baseless. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased, C. Bhaskar Rao @ Ravi met with motor vehicle accident on 10-04-2011 and died due to rash and negligent driving of the 5 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 respondent APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 119 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioners? 2. What was the age and earnings of deceased per month at the time of death on 10-04-2011? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation form respondent, if so what quantum? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1, who was the driver of the bus, was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.9,19,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount, by virtue of the employment, respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 was directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the judgment. Out of the said compensation amount, petitioner No.1 was awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were awarded Rs.2,00,000/- each and the same was directed to be kept in fixed deposits till they attain majority and petitioner No.4 was awarded an amount of Rs.19,000/-. The petitioner No.1 was entitled to receive costs. All 6 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 four petitioners were permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with accrued interest, while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 may withdraw their amounts after attaining majority. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and his death, having dashed the left rear side of the bus in a drunken state. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed serious irregularity in fixing the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, without any sufficient proof. Further, the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 35 years, without any valid documentary proof to substantiate the same. The quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned on the ground that the amounts awarded under different heads are exorbitant and excessive and the rate of interest is also on higher side. Apart from other grounds, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the deceased was not living with the petitioners/claimants and he was living alone far away from the petitioners/claimants. Hence, the petitioners cannot said to be dependents on the deceased and are not entitled for any compensation. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. Though it is the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioners/claimants have relied upon Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., the FIR, Charge Sheet, post-mortem certificate, inquest report, and the evidence of PW2, who is an independent witness, which categorically shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though it was contended that the deceased was mentally unstable and touched the bus in an intoxicated state, no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove the same. Hence, no interference is warranted with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. So far as the contention that the deceased was living alone far away from the petitioners and not maintaining any relationship with them, and therefore they cannot said to be his dependents, is concerned, it is to be noted that except raising such a vague ground in this appeal, no suggestion was put 8 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 to any of the witnesses before the Tribunal in that regard. In the absence of any piece of evidence, such a vague assertion cannot be accepted. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the case of the petitioners was that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working salesman and studio assistant. In order to prove the same, they were examined as P.W.s 3 and 4, under whom the deceased have worked. PW3 categorically deposed that the deceased was working under him from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., and he was paying Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased. PW4 has also stated that the deceased was working under him from 6.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and he was paying Rs.3,000/- per month to the deceased. The petitioners have also filed Exs.A5 and A6 certificates issued by PWs 3 and 4 to that effect. However, the Tribunal having opined that the deceased working in two shops on the same day is not believable and deemed it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, upon deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, his contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.4,500/- per month, amounting to Rs.54,000/- per annum (Rs.4,500/- x 12). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 35 years, as recorded in Exs.A2 to A4, the Tribunal 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.921 of 2019 has arrived at Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.54,000 X 16) towards loss of future earnings and estate, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, which cannot be found fault with. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.9,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 14. 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: 20.06.2025 KGR 2 2017 ACJ 2700