APHC010308562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 303/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BILLA AMMAJI, W/O LATE CHINNA POSIYYA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O KOVVUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BILLA VINODH, S/O LATE CHINNA POSIYYA, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O KOVVUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BILLA BHAVANI, D/O LATE CHINNA POSIYYA, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O KOVVUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. ANCHURI SUBBARAO, S/O BURAYYA, AGED 45 YARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O HNO. 3-209, MAIN ROAD, NANDARADA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (R4 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 13.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P NO.166 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims 2 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 Tribunal cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, in partly allowing the claim petition. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A. No.303 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation”) assailing the award, dated 13.12.2021, passed in M.V.O.P.No.166 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, in awarding compensation of Rs.10,22,000/- on account of death of deceased Billa Chinna Posiyya with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realistion. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) 1st claimant wife and claimants 2 and 3 minor children instituted claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for death of deceased Billa Chinna Posiyya being husband of 1st claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3. Deceased claimed to be Mason and aged 42 years, while he along with another person proceeding on motorcycle to attend masonry work, on 20.07.2018, APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 05 Z 4 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 0046 being driven by 1st respondent/driver hit the motorcycle from opposite direction, thereby both rider and pillion rider fell down and received grievous injuries. The co-rider died on the spot and deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram, where after undergoing treatment for some time, he succumbed on 31.08.2018. The deceased stated to be pillion rider and on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending bus, the accident had occurred. Claiming that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as mason, claim was laid for Rs.15,00,000/-. The incident was also reported to Police and the same was registered as Crime No.121 of 2018 of Rajahmundry Urban Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against driver of the bus, later after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against him. (b) The driver of the bus, who was arrayed as 1st respondent, was set ex parte and the 2nd respondent Corporation filed written statement denying that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and denied any liability. Further, even the age, earnings of the deceased were denied and disputed. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.1, driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0046 on 20.07.2018 and caused death of Billa Chinna Posiyya? 5 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?” (e) In support of the claim, wife of deceased was examined as PW.1 and an eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. None were examined for the Corporation nor any documents were marked. (f) First issue came to be answered by holding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, having regard to the evidence of PW.2 eyewitness and Exs.A1 to A4, which are copies of F.I.R., inquest report, Post-mortem certificate and charge-sheet. Having come to the conclusion that negligence was attributable to driver of the bus, proceeded to determine the compensation. In the process, though the claim was made that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has made some guess work and arrived the income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m. Considering his age as 42 years, awarded future prospects of 25% and having regard to the fact that 3 claimants were there, deducted 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal expenses and thereby computed an amount of Rs.9,52,000/- for the same. Besides, the Tribunal also granted Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant, thereby awarded 6 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 compensation in total of Rs.10,22,000/-. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation and Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the present appeal only with respect to the determination of quantum of compensation to be on higher side that too in particular the assessment of income of the deceased to be without proper evidence and basis. While elaborating the submissions, he contended that though claimants have claimed the earnings of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month, have not produced any evidence in that direction. But, however, the Tribunal based on some guesswork, has determined his income as Rs.7,000/- per month, which is far higher and that too when there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was mason. 6. Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants tried to support the impugned order by contending that in fact Tribunal having observed that even as per minimum wages in the contemporaneous context mason was earning 7 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 about Rs.300/- per day ought to have assessed income as Rs.9,000/- per month, but not Rs.7,000/- p.m., therefore, it cannot be said that Tribunal has come to conclusion of assessing the income without any evidence or basis. He further contended that Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium only to 1st claimant and has not awarded the same to remaining claimants, which is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The point for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned Award determining the quantum of compensation? 9. POINT: There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident on 20.07.2018. The Tribunal has rendered finding that accident had occurred because of rash and negligence of driver of the offending bus. This appeal does not challenge the aspect of liability and confines challenge to the determination of quantum of compensation alone. The claimants have sought for compensation claiming that deceased was 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 earning Rs.10,000/- per month as mason. The Tribunal has recorded finding that there is no evidence forthcoming to indicate that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The evidence on record is only of that of self-serving statement of PW.1 and there is no other oral or documentary evidence to buttress aforesaid aspect. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m., having regard to the nature of job of deceased i.e. considering as skilled worker. The Tribunal has determined Rs.7,000/- p.m. though it had observed that minimum day wages of mason at relevant point of time would be around Rs.300/- per day. In the opinion of this Court, the amount assessed by the Tribunal definitely is based on the minimum day wages notified or being paid at the relevant point of time for a skilled worker, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount was fixed without any basis. As the Tribunal has taken a particular view based on the wages of skilled workers paid at relevant point of time, this Court is not inclined to disturb such finding. 10. Though learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that as the Tribunal has assessed minimum day wage as Rs.300/- per day, it ought to have granted Rs.9,000/- p.m., the same has fallacy inasmuch as it cannot be presumed that a day worker would be engaged and working for entire 30 days in a month, even as per the 9 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 guidelines of Labour Department, weekly off is provided to such worker, therefore, the Tribunal considering all aforesaid aspects and factoring the working days, has assessed Rs.7,000/- p.m. which is justified. 11. Insofar as the grant of compensation on account of conventional heads, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants that the Tribunal has granted loss of consortium only to the 1st claimant and denying the same for others. 12. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case1, Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.3, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo4, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/-, ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case4. 2 (2018) 11 SCC 780 3 (2021) 11 SCC 780 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 10 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 13. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as mentioned below: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹7,000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/- 2 Future prospects (below 50 years) ₹21,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Total Income ₹1,05,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/3rd) ₹35,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹70,000/- 5 Multiplier of 14 for the age of below 50 years 14 x ₹70,000/- = ₹9,80,000/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (3 claimants) ₹48,400/- x 3 = 1,45,200/- (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7. Total Compensation ₹11,62,500/- 14. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. However, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.11,62,500/- payable along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellant/ Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, 11 CGR, J. MACMA. No.303 of 2022 failing which, the respondents/claimants are entitled to initiate appropriate recovery steps. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/1st claimant is entitled for withdrawal of the entire enhanced compensation. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:14.08.2025. cs