APHC010287632020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 5^ A FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA jVjOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 403 OF 2020 A Between: The APSRTC, Rep.by its Managing Director, Office Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Now at Vijayawada. at RTC Cross ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.1 AND 1. Suman, W/o.Late Rajkumar, Hindu, aged about 20 wife, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona, Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. 2. Maya, W/o.Rameshver, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Occ:House Rajasthan. Present years, Occ; House wife, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur, Rajasthan. Present residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. 3. Rameshver, S/o.Late Panchiya, aged about 70 years, OcciCoolie, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dhoiapur, Rajasthan. Present residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. 4. Vinod Sharma, S/o.Rameshver, Hindu, aged about 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur, Rajasthan. Present residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 5. T.Mohan Babu, S/o.Thyagarajan, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o.Kotrakona Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT N0.2 {5^*' Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 17-01-2020 passed in MVOP No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Advocate petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao for Appellant (SC for APSRTC), and of Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4, and none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed; 2. That the Order and Decree M.V.O.P.No.36 of 2017 by the Chairman dated 17-01-2020 passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, be and hereby are confirmed: and / / 3. That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA. SDI- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. Two CD Copies TAC 4 HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 403 OF 2020 of 0 9 SEP 2025 J Sectjon^ CT' • Iifi; DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHCOI 0287632020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIWARAVATI FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ ffO |0 PRESENT the honourable motor ACCIDEMT riyii Appeal filed under Section Order and Decree dated file of the Chairman, District Judge, Tirupati, Between; SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA miscellaneous Appeal jjO: 403 OF ?non 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the passed in MVOP No.36 of 2017 17-01-2020 on the Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Chittoor District. The APSRTC, Rep.by Managing Director Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad Office at RTC Cross ■ Now at Vijayawada. -appellant/respondent N0.1 AND 1. Suman, W/o.Late Rajkumar. Wife, R/o.Gandhi Hindu, aged about 20 years, Occ;House Present Timasiya Basari Dholapur, Rajasthan. residing at D.No.8-417, 2. Maya, W/o.Rameshver Jeevakona, Sathyanaray Hindu, aged about 66 anapuram, Tirupati. years, Occ.House wife R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Dholapur, Rajasthan. ^ Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. Present residing at 3. Rameshver, S/o.Late Panchiya aged about 70 years, Occ;Coolie R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur, Rajasthan. Present residing ai D.No.8-417. Jeevakona Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati 4. Vinod Sharma. S/o. Rameshver, Hindu, aged about 24 years. Ooc: Coolie, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur, Rajasthan. Present residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. ...respondents/petitioners 1 TO 4 S/o.Thyagarajan, Hindu, aged about 42 years R/o.Kotrakona Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District 5. T.Mohan Babu ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT N0.2 (5 Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) lA NO: 1 OF 2n?n Petition filed under Order 41 Section 151 CPC Rule 5, Order 43, Rule 1 & 2 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court execution of decree in read with may be pleased to grant stay of P"^®"""ttoMVOPNo.36of2017dated 17.01.2020 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional of the above MACMA. jA NO: 1 OF 2021 AND lA Mn- 2_OF 2021 (Common C.T) Between: 1- Suman, W/o.Late Rajkumar Occ.Housewife Hindu, aged about 21 years, Dholapur, Rajasthan. Jeevakona, Satyanarayanapuram, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Present residing at D.No.8-417 Tirupathi. 2. Maya, W/o.Rameshver R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur, D.No.8-417, Jeevakona, Satyanaraya Hindu, aged about 67 years, Occ.Housewife, Rajasthan. Present residing at napuram, Tirupati. /7 if 3. Rameshver, S/o.Late Panchiya, aged about 71 R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari Dholapur D.No.8-417, Jeevakona years, Occ.Coolie Rajasthan. Present residing at Satyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. 4. Vinod Sharma, S/o.Rameshver Hindu, aged about 25 years, Occ; Dholapur, Rajasthan. Present Coolie, R/o.Gandhi Timasiya Basari residing at D.No.8-417, Jeevakona Satyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. - PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS 1. The APSRTC, Rep.by its Managing Director, Office at RTC Cross Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Now at Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT S/o.Thyagarajan, Hindu, aged about 43 years R/o.Kotrakona Viiiage and Post, G.D.Neilore Mandal, Chittoor District. ’ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT2 2. T.Mohan Babu jANO: 1 OF 2091- Petition filed under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to permit the claimants praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be . withdraw the amount deposited by Appellant herein in M.V.O.P.No.36 of 2017 Accidents Claims Tribunal the on the file of Motor Vehicle H ■ -'=>JT-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, which was deposited in pursuance of the Order dated 19.10.2020 ■I passed in lA. No. 1 of 2020 in MACMA No.403 of 2020. I .1 jA NO: 2 OF 2071 Petition filed under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to vacate, the interim Order may be dated 19.10.2020 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2020 in MACMA No.403 of 2020. li I ; 8 i / Counsel for the Appellant : SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN The Court made the following JUDGMENT : w r APHC010287632020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3333] m FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 403/2020 Between: 1.APSRTC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE AT RTC CROSS ROAD, M USHEERA BAD, HYDERABAD, NOW AT VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1.SUMAN, W/0 LATE RAJKUMAR, HINDU,AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE. 2.MAYA, W/0 RAMESHVER, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. 3.RAMESHVER, S/0 LATE PANCHIYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE. 4.VINOD SHARMA, S/0 RAMESHVER, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE. (ALL ARE R/0 GANDHI TIMASIYA BASARI DHOLAPUR RAJASTHAN PRESENT RESIDING AT SATHYANARAYANAPURAM JEEVAKONA D.NO.8-417 TRUPATL) 5.T MOHAN BABU, S/0 THYAGARAJAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KOTRAKONA VILLAGE AND POST G.D NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S); ■V- 2 VS, J IVIACMA.No.403 of 2020 Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.CHVENKAT RAMAN 2. The Court made the following order: 6 I I I I f ] I 2 VS, J MACMA.No.403 of 2020 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 17.01.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.36 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 12,12,400/- as against the claim of Rs.18,00,000/- on the death of the deceased Rajkumar in a motor accident that occurred on 09.06.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- on the death of one Raj Kumar (herein after referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred on 09.06.2016. On the date of the incident at about 09.20 a.m., at Balaji link bus stand cross, on Nandi circle to Garuda circle, Tirumala by-pass road. while the deceased was going on Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP03 AB 7520 on the left side of the road along with his brother Vinod as pillion rider, the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5578 nd (herein after referred to as offending vehicle) of Alipiri depot driven by 2 respondent while proceeding from Nandi circle side to Garuda circle side. vs, J MACMA.No.403 of 2020 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without taking due care and caution and without blowing horn and suddenly took left turn without any signal and dashed against the deceased motor cycle, as a result, the deceased fell down and the left rear tyre of the bus ran over him and he was crushed and dragged to some distance. Immediately, he was shifted to SVRRGG HospitI, Tirupati and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No.42 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and quite hale and healthy prior to the accident. The deceased was doing marble laying mason work and used to earn Rs.600/- per day. nd 4. While the 2 respondent-driver remained ex parte, the respondent Corporation filed its written statement denying the material contentions of the claim petition. The respondent-Corporation claimed that the deceased age was shown on lower side and the income on higher side. On the date of incident, the deceased drove his motor cycle in a negligent manner, while moving on the back side of the offending vehicle, hit the foot path, lost control over the motor vehicle and immediately fell down under the rear side of the offending vehicle. Immediately, the 2 nd / 4 VS, J MACIVIA.No.403 of 2020 respondent stopped the vehicle and shifted the injured to hospital. There is no negligence on the part of the 2"'^ respondent. The passengers also witnessed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased only. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5578 and Involved for loss of life time of the deceased Raj Kumar? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 4) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 St were examined and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 1 respondent, RW1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with proportionate costs against respondent Nos.1 and 2, 5 VS, J MACMA.No.403 of 2020 awarding compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition tiii the date of deposit. The Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the said from the date of award. The 1 entitled Rs.6,12,400/- along with petitioner being mother of the deceased with accrued interest thereon amount of compensation, within one month petitioner being wife of the deceased IS accrued interest thereon, the 2 nd is entitled Rs.3.50,000/- along the petitioner being father of deceased is entitied Rs.2,50,000/- along with accrued interest thereon. Out of the deposit amount, the petitioners the 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw 75 percent of their respective amounts with accrued interest and costs and remaining amounts shall be kept in FD in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and after completion of FD period, they are permitted remaining balance amount with costs and interest, rest of the ciaim of the petitioners' stands dismissed inciuding the claim of the forth petitioner. to withdraw their The 8. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal contending that the Tribunal no negligence on the part of the driver of the negligence on the part of the deceased contended that the claim petition the respondent/APSRTC preferred failed to consider that there RTC and only due to the the accident occurred. It is is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. was 6 VS, J IVIACMA.No.403 of 2020 It is further contended that the Tribunal deceased at Rs.6000/- substantiate the erred in fixing the earnings of the per month, without any documentary evidence to same, and also erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 30 years at the time of further contended that the Tribunal accident without any proof. It is erred in adding 40% of the income compensation awarded by the Tribunal is prayed to allow the appeal. towards future prospects and excessive and exorbitant and, therefore I 9. Now the point for consideration is; Whether the order of the Tribunal 10. POINT: I needs any interference? It is the contention of the appellant that there the part of the driver of the RTC Bus negligence on the part of the deceased was no negligence on and accident solely occurred due to which was witnessed by the passengers in the bus. A perusal of the impugned award shows that a case has been registered against the driver of the bus and after against him. PWl is not the direct - is said to be eye witness to and negligent driving of the RTC Bus categorically deposed that on 09.06.2016 at stand cross on Nandi Circle to Garuda investigation charge sheet was laid eye witness to the accident. Whereas, PW2 who i i the accident deposed about the rash which lead to accident. PW2 about 09.20 a.m., at Baiji Ifhk bus I 7 VS, J MAGMA.No.403 of 2020 Circle, Tirumala by pass road, Tirupati, while the deceased was riding motor cycle slowly on the left side of the road along with a pillion rider, the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.2 proceeding from Nandi circle to Garuda circle, drove the same in rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and without blowing horn, suddenly took at Balaji link bus stand and dashed against the deceased motor cycle a result of which, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and left side tyre of the offending vehicle bus ran over him. PW2 was cross- examined at length, but as held by the Tribunal, there is no much material elicited to discard his evidence turn , as rear as unworthy of credence or impeach his credibility. The 2^^"^ respondent was examined as RW1, he admitted that police filed charge sheet against him and the departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was suspended for 6 months regarding the present case. Therefore, having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and Ex.A-2 Charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the of the said finding. 8 VS, J MAGMA.No.403 of 2020 11. So far as the quantum of compensation iIS concerned, the Tribunal placing reliance on Ex.A2 Inquest Report, Ex.A3 Post and considered the age of the deceased accident. Though the petitioners contended that -mortem certificate as 30 years as on the date of the deceased was a marble lying mason and earning Rs.600/- per day and in support of their version have also examined PW2 who deposed that the earning Rs.600/- per day. In the absence of i| deceased is any documentary evidence the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month per the Minimum Wages Act. As as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Wat/ona/ /naarance Company Ltd. I/s. Pranay Sethi and Others^ where below the age of 40 years, 40% of the i the deceased was income should be added, which amounts to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/- (40% of Rs.6,000/-)) .As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, where the number of dependant family members is taken as 3 since the fourth petitioner is aged about 24 years and not dependent on the deceased, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3^" of the income of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3^^ of the income of the deceased towards ’ (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050) ^2009 AC J 1298 9 VS, J MACMA.No.403 of 2020 his personal expenses and arrived at Rs.5,600/ Rs.2,800/-) which is Rs.67,200/- - per month (Rs.8,400/- - per annum towards his contribution to the family. By applying the relevant the deceased i.e„ 30 years, the Tribunal has (Rs.67,200 X 17) towards the loss multiplier of '17' applicable to the age of arrived at Rs. 11,42,400/- of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the Court in Sar/a Verma’. the petitioners guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble s Case (supra 2). Further, the Tribunal Apex opined that are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of loss of consortium to 1« petitioner expenses and in total, the petitioners towards estate. Rs.40,000/- towards and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral be entitled to Rs. 12.12,400/- proper and cannot be said to be the order passed by the Tribunal requires no interference i answered accordingly. would compensation which is just and excessive or on higher side. Therefore, does not suffer from in this civil miscellaneous any infirmity and appeal. The point is Accordingly, the decree dated 17.01.2020 Chairman, Motor Accident Judge, Tirupati. There shall appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.36 Claims Tribunal be no order as to and of 2017 by the -cum-IV Additional District costs. / 10 vs, J IVIACMA.No.403 of 2020 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Chairman, Motor Accidents I District Judge, Tirupati. Chittoor District. (With records if any) 3' One" rr r [OPUC] ■ One CC to Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUCJ 4. The Section Officer Amaravati. v. 5. Two CD Copies BSV Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at :X. ; TAC I P HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA NO. 403 OF 2020 # 0 9 SEP 2025 «2,v SsCufrent Sectjoj^X^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS