APHC010422382021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 541/2021 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, , REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. SOMALA RAJU SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE BHASKAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 2. SOMALA RAJU VINOD KUMAR RAJU, , S/O LATE BHASKAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 3. SOMALA RAJU REDDY RAMA RAJU, S/O LATE BHASKAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. 4. SOMALA RAJU NARAYANA RAJU, , S/O LATE SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 5. SOMALA RAJU AKHAYAMMA, W/O NARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS NO. 3 IS MINOR REP.BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 (RESPONDENTS ARE HINDUS,R/O AT SINGARAJU GARIPALLI VILLAGE,H/O MADDIREVULA, LAKKIRADDIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP The Court made the following: VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 2 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 05.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,79,480/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- on the death of the deceased S. Bhaskar Raju in a motor accident that occurred on 22.07.2010. 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 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 476 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on the death of one S. Bhaskar Raju (herein after referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred on 22.07.2010. On 22.07.2010 the deceased went to Sattigunta to attend his job. After completion of work, the deceased boarded into APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5342 of Kurnool Depot at Old Bus Stand, Rajampet at about 2.00 A.M., to go to Kadapa. On the way, when the said bus reached S. Errapalli Village, the bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5815 belonging to the respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 3 negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the bus in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajampet in 108 Ambulance, where the deceased died. Basing on the complaint given by the driver of the bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5342, a case in Crime No.91 of 2010 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. The deceased was working as Security Guard – cum – Driver in Frontline Construction Company, Kadapa, and was also doing agriculture, thereby he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. All the petitioners are dependents of the deceased and sought for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation on the death of the deceased in a road accident. 4. The respondent Corporation filed its written statement disputing the case of the petitioners contended that the petitioners shall prove the earnings of the deceased by way of necessary oral and documentary evidence and the manner in which the accident occurred. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 4 1) Whether the deceased Somalaraju Bhaskar Raju, S/o Narayana Raju met with an accident on 22.07.2010 and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5815 relating to the respondent? 2) Whether the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what quantum? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 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, awarding compensation of Rs.8,79,480/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent is directed to deposit the compensation awarded with interest and costs within one month from the date of the award. Out of the said compensation amount, 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,79,480/- with accrued interest and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,79,480/- with accrued interest and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, thereafter she is at liberty to withdraw the same. The 2nd petitioner is VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 5 entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest and he is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the same. The 3rd petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest and he is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest after attaining majority and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the same. The 4th and 5th petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest and they are permitted to withdraw the same after deposit by respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5815. It is further contended that the driver of RTC Bus was not made as party to the claim petition and hence, the same is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,800/- per month, without any VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 6 documentary evidence to substantiate the same, and also erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of accident without any evidence. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents – claimants contended that the compensation awarded is very low. Further, the Tribunal while taking the annual income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,800/- per month, should not have deducted 10% towards income tax from the compensation. He further contended that even in the absence of appeal by the claimants, the compensation can be enhanced awarding just and reasonable compensation. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT: Though it is the contention of the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5815, a perusal of the impugned award shows that a case has been registered against the driver of the bus and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against him. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 7 coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and manner of accident, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and hence no interference is warranted with the said finding. 12. It is the other contention of the appellant that the driver of Respondent is not made as a party. However, the Tribunal relying upon the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Machindranath’s Kernath Kasar vs. D.S.Mylarappa1, has rightly held that no doubt driver of the offending vehicle is not impleaded, whereas respondent is sued as owner of offending vehicle and hence, the claim petition is not vitiated due to not impleadment of driver of offending vehicle. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners contended that the deceased was working as Security Guard – cum – Driver in Frontline Construction Company, Kadapa and also doing agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and in support of their contention, they also examined PW2 who deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,400/- per month and relied on Ex.A6 salary certificate, but the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal since it is 1 2008 Law Suit (SC) 650: 2008 (2) TAC 789 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 8 not an authenticated document and cannot be relied upon. However, in the light of the decision reported in Lakshmi Devi Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another2, wherein when the income of the deceased was notionally calculated in the absence of any documentary evidence. In the present case on hand, since the accident took place in the year 2010, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.160/- per day which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month and his annual income was accordingly calculated at Rs.57,600/- (Rs.4,800/- x 12), which in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others3, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, 40% of the income should be added, which amounts to Rs.80,640/- (Rs.57,600 + Rs.23,040/- (40% of Rs.57,600)) .As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4, where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th of the income of the deceased. In the instant case, there are five dependant family members i.e., wife, three 2 2008 ACJ 1488 3 (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050) 4 2009 ACJ 1298 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 9 sons and parents of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and arrived at Rs.60,480/- per annum (Rs.80,640/- - Rs.20,160/-) towards his contribution to the family. By applying the relevant multiplier of „15‟ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 40 years, as recorded in Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.60,480 x 15) towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (referred supra). Further, the Tribunal opined that the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to 1st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.9,77,200/- towards compensation, but however, in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in Chanderi Devi and another Vs. Jaspal singh and others5, wherein 10% of income shall be deducted towards income tax, in the instant case, upon deduction of 10% of the compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,79,480/- towards compensation. 5 2015 SAR (Civil) 709 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 10 14. From the above, it is clear that in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,800/-, then his annual income would be Rs.57,600/- (Rs.4,800 X 12) and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as there are 5 dependents in the present case, and applying multiplier „15‟, deducted Rs.97,720/- towards income tax at the rate of 10% by relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Chanderi Devi and others Vs. Jaspal Singh and others6” 15. In the facts of the said case, deceased was employed as a cook in an Indian restaurant in Germany and died in a road accident in 2006. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances of the case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court deducted 10% towards income tax from the amount awarded towards loss of dependency to the claimants. 16. The principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the said case is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the deceased in this case on hand has died in the year 2010, and in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken Rs.160/- as daily income, thereby monthly income of the deceased was calculated as Rs.4,800/-, which comes to Rs.57,600/- per annum, and it does not come under the purview of taxable income. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the 6 (2015)11SCC703 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 11 finding of the Tribunal to the extent of deducting 10% towards income tax is liable to be set aside and the compensation be enhanced by awarding Rs.97,720/-, which was deducted by the Tribunal towards income tax. 17. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others7 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. 7 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 12 18. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (referred supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others8. 19. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (referred supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal the above observations are made. Therefore, the award of amount of Rs.8,79,480/- is enhanced to Rs.9,77,200/-. As discussed above, the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: 8 (2021) 16 SCC 467 VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 13 S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Amounts now enhanced by this Court Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 9,07,200-00 ------- 2. Towards loss of estate 15,000-00 ------ 3. Loss of consortium for petitioner No.1 (wife of the deceased) 40,000-00 ----- 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 ------ 5. Deduction towards income tax (-) 97,720-00 97,720-00 Total Rs.8,79,480-00 Rs.97,720-00 Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal : Rs.8,79,480/- Amount of compensation now enhanced : Rs. 97,720/- --------------------- Amount of compensation now awarded : Rs.9,77,200/- --------------------- In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,79,480/- is enhanced to Rs.9,77,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 14 compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 18.07.2025 ARB VS, J MACMA.No.541 of 2021 15 329 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A..No.541 of 2021 DATE: 18.07.2025 ARB