APHC010318622022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 232/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MANDAPALLI KUMARI, W/O LATE RAMBABU, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O HNO 4-163, ARUNDATHIYAPETA, KURADA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. MANDAPALLI SRINIVAS, S/O LATE RAMBABU, AGED 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O HNO 4163, ARUNDATHIYAPETA, KURADA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MANDAPALLI SARMILA, D/O LATE RAMBABU, AGED 17 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O HNO 4-163, ARUNDATHIYAPETA, KURADA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MANDAPALLI RAGHAVULU, S/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O HNO 4-163, ARUNDATHIYAPETA, KURADA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. MANDAPALLI GOWRAMMA, W/O RAGHAVULU, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O HNO 4-163, ARUNDATHIYAPETA, KURADA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST 2 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. BONALA DEVUDU, S/O APPANNA, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC RTC DRIVER, R/O HNO 7-120, RUSHIKONDA, SWARNA BHARATHI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN. (R6 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS HE IS DRIVER OF APSRTC) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside Decree and Order dated 15.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 568 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of decree and order dated 15.02.2022 in MVOP No: 568 of 2018 on the file of the Learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 The Court made the followingJudgment: Present appeal is preferred by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, assailing the order dated 15.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.568 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. By aforesaid order, passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,96,600/- for the death of one Mandapalli Rambabu,along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Deceased was agricultural coolie. While he was proceeding on Suzuki Axis motor bike bearing No.AP 05 BY 3050, on 09.08.2018 at about 5 P.M., met with an accident, hit by appellant-Corporation bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 5143. The bus being driven by respondent No.1-driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, resultantly, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, along with multiple injuries all over the body. He was shifted to local hospital where he succumbed to injuries. He was stated to be aged 30 years and earning an income of Rs.9000/- per month by attending agricultural coolie works. 4 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 (b) Wife, two children, mother and father of deceased filed present claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘M.V.Act’)for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in total under different heads. (c) The 1st respondent-Driver was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter, denying the manner in which the accident occurred, that the driver of the bus was negligent and responsible for the accident, and also disputed age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. (d) On behalf of claimants, 1st claimant/wife of deceased got examined as P.W.1 and eyewitness to accident as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.The driver of bus was examined as R.W.1 and no other documents were marked on their behalf. (e) The Tribunal, considering the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 5143? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief? 5 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 (f) Insofar as the 1st issue is concerned, considering the evidence of P.W.1, in particular evidence of P.W.2-eyewitness and E.Xs.A1 to A4, which are F.I.R., Inquest Report, Postmortem report and Charge sheet, the Tribunal came to conclusion that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of bus. Though the driver himself was examined, in the absence of any other independent witness or other countervailing evidence, the same came to be discarded. (g) The Tribunal further proceeded to determine the compensation by considering the age of deceased as 40years. While coming to the earnings, though claim was made that deceased was earning Rs.9000/-, as there was no evidence forthcoming to that extent, the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.6000/- per month and after deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses, computed the compensation. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,96,600/-, which is over and above what has been claimed by claimants, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. (h) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 3. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for appellant. Though notices were served on respondents, none appears. 6 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.6000/- per month, which is without any basis, particularly when the claimants had miserably failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim that deceased was earning Rs.9000/- as agricultural coolie. Further, he also contended that the Tribunal has deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses, rather it ought to have deducted 1/4th, following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, as the number of claimants is between four and six. 5. Perused the record. 6. The appeal is confined to challenge on quantum alone, and there is no challenge to liability. Even on quantum, learned counsel for appellant has mainly contended on two aspects. Firstly, monthly earnings determined by Tribunal and Secondly, deductions made towards personal expenses. Both of them are integral to each other. 7. Admittedly, claimants laid claim of monthly earnings at the rate of Rs.9000/-per month. However, they could not produce any evidence in that regard. The Tribunal, therefore, had to go by notional basis. It has taken Rs.6000/- per month as monthly income. P.W.1 spoke that deceased was agricultural coolie,except that there 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 was no other evidence to indicate that really he was having any avocation or earnings. The Tribunal had not given any reason as to why the income has been assessed at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis. 8. The accident occurred on 09.08.2008. Even if the minimum wages as applicable to non-skilled persons to be applied, daily wage of Rs.150/- would have been reasonable and prudent. This Court, therefore, finds that the Tribunal ought to have considered monthly earnings at the rate of Rs.150/- per day i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month, to be just and reasonable. 9. The Tribunal has deducted 1/5th of the same towards personal expenses. As rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant, the deduction should have been at the rate of 1/4th following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra-1). 10. The Tribunal has granted loss of Consortium of Rs.44,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-, loss of love and affection Rs.5,000/-, loss of estate Rs.18,000/-, funeral expenditure Rs.15,000/- in total Rs.87,000/-, besides the amount of Rs.12,09,600/- towards loss of dependency. 11. On the point of conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra-1), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and 8 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 others2,Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. 4., and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others5,theclaimants are entitled the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case(Supra-5). 12. Therefore, the compensation that the claimants would be entitled under the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads, are revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs.4,500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 40 years) Rs.13,500/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Total Income Rs.67,500/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Rs.16,875/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.50,625/- 5 Multiplier of 15 for the age of 40 years 15 x Rs.50,625/- = Rs.7,59,375/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- x 5) 2 (2018) 11 SCC 780 3 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 4 (2021) 11 SCC 780 5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 9 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7 Total Compensation Rs.10,37,675/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chikkamma and another v. Parvathamma and another6,Rushi Alias Ruchi Thapa, through her father, Dhan Bahadur Thapa v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another7, Velayudhan v. National Insurance Company Limited and another8considering the aspect of awarding interest, held that 7.5% per annum to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, following the same, the rate of interest in this case is hereby revised to 7.5% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed, modifying the compensation from Rs.12,96,600/- to 10,37,675/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in following terms: 1. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount after deducting the amount, if any, deposited out of total compensation of within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6(2018) 18 SCC 712 7(2025) 1 SCC 635 8(2023) 11 SCC 798 10 HCGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.232 of 2022 2. Out of total compensation amount of Rs.10,37,675/-, the 1st claimant-wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,07,675/- and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,75,000/- each, who are children, claimants 4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.90,000/- each, who are mother and father of deceased. 3. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 4. Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 1st claimant before the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 31.07.2025 KBN