APHC010001282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL Between: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (ksrtc) Manneti Chennamma and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMINI VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 256/2024 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (ksrtc) ...APPELLANT AND Manneti Chennamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following: [3311] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 256/2024 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, in M.V.O.P.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased, Manneti Pedda Subba Reddy, in an accident occurred on 10.01.2019. The Tribunal directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation awarded jointly and severally. 2. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant/1st respondent/ insurance company preferred this appeal before this Court mainly on the grounds that (i) the Tribunal erroneously determined the age of the deceased; (ii) the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by adducing necessary evidence; and (iii) the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence upon the deceased who contributed to the accident. 3. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant/1st respondent and Sri K. Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/claimants 1 and 2. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 4. The first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the son of the deceased. The third petitioner who is the son of the deceased and the fourth petitioner who is the mother of the deceased died. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the amount of compensation for the reasons recorded in the judgment itself. 6. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the age of the deceased? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence of the deceased? 3. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct or not? POINT No.1: 7. The main contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal awarded huge amount of compensation by ignoring the evidence on record such as the age of the deceased as ‘55’ years admitted by PW1 and taking the age of the deceased as ‘45’ years basing on the post mortem report alone and consequently adopted higher figure of multiplier adoptable to the person aged 55 years. It is further contended that the amount of income per month was fixed at high rate of Rs.10,000/- without there being any proof though the deceased was doing only flower business. It 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 is also vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the driver of the vehicle which the deceased was travelling along with nine (9) others overloading the vehicle and hit the bus of the appellant on its back side which by itself shows no negligence of the driver of the appellant but would prove the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the deceased was not just doing flower business but had agricultural land wherein he was growing flowers and was doing business and therefore, the Tribunal righty assessed the monthly income of the deceased and the same does not require any interference in this appeal. He further submitted that the age of the deceased was rightly considered basing on the reliable evidence, i.e., post mortem report, as it was prepared by a medical officer whereas PW1 is a rustic illiterate woman. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant as the charge sheet was also laid by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the appellant only after duly conducting the investigation and moreover, there is no evidence placed to deny the negligence of the appellant’s driver or to prove the 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. POINT No.2: 9. Insofar as the negligence is concerned, the claimants examined one witness as PW2 whereas the respondents failed to examine any witness. Therefore, on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the appellant alone was responsible for the accident. Merely because Eicher vehicle hit the appellant’s bus on its back, negligence of the driver of the Eicher or contributory negligence of the said driver cannot be inferred particularly in view of the oral and the documentary evidence on record. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect does not require any interference. 10. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, in the absence of any other evidence, the documentary evidence of Post Mortem Examination report would be considered as relatively reliable evidence, but when PW1 herself admitted the age of her husband as 55 years merely on the ground of illiteracy, her evidence cannot be rejected. The age stated in the post mortem report is not based on any scientific examination by the Medical Officer and it is only the approximate age mentioned. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in ignoring the 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 evidence of PW1 and considering only the age as mentioned in the post mortem report. Therefore, the age of the deceased shall be taken as ‘55’ years. The corresponding multiplier for the person aged between 51 to 55 years as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors1 is ‘11’. 11. Coming to the income of the deceased is concerned, the contention of the claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing business in chamanchi flowers and he owned ten acres of agricultural land where he used to grow flowers besides raising crop such as banana, groundnut and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. They failed to file any other documentary proof to show the actual income except filing exhibit A5 which is the pattadar pass book in the name of the deceased. 12. As per exhibit A5, the total extent of land in the name of the deceased is Ac.3.93 cents. In the absence of proof of actual income, it is only a reasonable notional assessment which is to be made by the Tribunal. He is not a mere flower vendor, but he raises the flowers and sells them in the market and this fact is evident from the evidence which indicates that the accident occurred at the time of transporting the flowers and he owned land as shown in Ex.A5. Even if such land is 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.256 of 2024 given on lease, one can easily get annual income on rent. Therefore, by raising the crops and selling them, one can reasonably earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal was not in error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased in this case at Rs.10,000/-. 13. In the light of the above findings, it is only in taking the age of the deceased error was found. As such the amount of compensation granted by adopting the multiplier of ‘13’ shall be altered and recounted by using the multiplier of ‘11’. The rest of the amount of compensation awarded is legal. 14. Thus, after applying the multiplier “11”, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,00,000/- X 11= Rs.11,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows: 1. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.11,00,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 3. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,70,000/- 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 24-01-2025 RAR