APHC010489102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 380 OF 2022 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by it's Regional Manager, RTC Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Mallimoggala Mutyavali, W/o Late Appaji, 36 years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 2. Mallimoggala Devi, D/o Late Appaji, 17 years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 3. Mallimoggala Dhanusri, D/o Late Appaji, 15 years, R/o Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. (2nd and 3rd Respondents are being minors represented by their natural guardian, mother i.e., the 1st Respondent herein.) 4. Mallimoggala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Appa Rao Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 5. Mallimoggala Govindamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 69 Years Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 73 years, R/o. R/o. / . / 6. Esakoti Satyanarayana S/o. Bus. R/o. D.No.1-51. Patha East Godavari District. (Respondent No.6 i Venkata Rao. 49 years, Driver of APSRTC Kolamuru, Kolamuru Rajahmundry Rural, IS not necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor decree and judgment passed i on the file of Motor Accident Claims Sessions Judge, West Godavari Appeal coming on for hearing and upon Appeal, the Judgment , evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Tariada (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and Sri ParimI Rayudu, for Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 and none This Court doth order and Vehicles Act. aggrieved by the 03.2024 -cum- IX Additional District and in M.V.O.P No. 143 of 2019 dated 23. Tribunal Kovvur. perusing the Memorandum of and Decree of the lower Court and the material Vinod Kumar Rama appeared for respondents. decree; 1 ■ That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed; 2. That the respondents enhanced 1 to 5/claimants be and are hereby granted as just and fair rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of compensation of Rs. 18,84,800/- compensation with interest at the petition till the date of realization; 3. That the appeiiant - Corporation be and i the compensation IS hereby directed to deposit amount of Rs. 18,84,800/- with costs and interest minus the amount, if any, already deposited the Tribunal; ’ within one month before 4. That on such deposit being made. out of the total amount of Rs.18,84,800/-, the claimants be and the following terms; compensation are hereby entitled in a) That the 1st claimant wife be and is hereby entitled for an amount of Rs.7,84,800/-; b) That the claimants 2 and 3 be and are hereby entitled for Rs.4,40,000/- each, who are minor daughters; and c) That the claimants 4 and 5 be and are hereby entitled for Rs.1,10,000/- each, who are father and mother of deceased; 5. That the Tribunal be and is hereby directed to proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms adjusting the amount, if any, already paid; and 6. That the entire costs in this case be and are hereby awarded in favour of the 1st claimant before the Tribunal. / SDI- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge: Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2. Two CD Copies SAM TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 DECREE WIACWIA No. 380 of 2022 21 AUG 2025 ^ . Current Section . DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010489102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUL'<fo > 1;. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 380 OF 2022 Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act., aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 143 of dated 23.03.2024 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by it's Regional Manager, RTC Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...APPELLANT AND Malhmoggala Mutyavali, W/o Late Appaji, 36 years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. Mallimoggala Devi, D/o Late Appaji, 17 years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. Mallimoggala Dhanusri, D/o Late Appaji, 15 years, R/o Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. (2nd and 3rd Respondents are being minors represented by their natural guardian, mother i.e., the 1st Respondent herein.) 1. 2. 3. #/ 4. Mallimoggala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, 73 years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. , 5. Mallimoggala Govindamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 69 Years, R/o. Kovvur Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 6. Esakoti Satyanarayana S/o. Venkata Rao, 49 years. Driver of APSRTC Bus, R/o. D.No.1-51, Patha Kolamuru, Kolamuru Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. (Respondent No.6 is not necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 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 stay of operation of Decree and Award dated 23.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 143 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 : SRI PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for other Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following JUDGMENT ; f APHC010489102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 380/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRACKASH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGIONAL MANAGER, RTC DEPOT, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DSITRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.MALLIMOGGALAMUTYAVALI, W/0 LATEAPPAJI, 36 YEARS, PLO. KOWUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, KOWUR. 2.MALLIMOGGALA DEVI, D/0 LATEAPPAJI, 11 YEARS, R/0. KOWUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, KOWUR 3.MALLIMOGGALADHANUSRI, D/0 LATEAPPAJI, 15 YEARS, R/0 KOWUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, KOWUR. ( 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER I.E., THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.) 4.MALLIMOGGALA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0. APPA ITAO, 73 YEARS, K/0. KOWUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, KOWUR. CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380of2022 jA 5.MALLIM0GCALA GOVINDAMMA, W/0. VENKUTESWARA RAO, 69 YEARS, R/0. KOWU TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOWUR. ...RESPONDENT(S); Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 143 of dated 23.03.2024 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PARIMI RAMARAYUDU The Court made the following: / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A, No.380 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“APSRTC”) preferred the present Appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment, dated 23.03.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. are 3. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are set out as under: 4. The deceased stated to have been proceeding on motorcycle on 28.07.2019 at about 2.30 p.m. and collided with bus owned by the APSRTC, which was coming in opposite direction, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the spot. He is stated to be aged 37 years and working as Senior Salesman at Tummidi Textiles, Rajahmahendravaram, and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. His wife, two daughters and father and mother preferred claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) 2 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 for compensation of Rs.25.00 Lakhs deceased. on account of the death of 5. 1 respondent driver of the bus was set ex parte and APSRTC has contested the claim by filing counter-affidavit inter alia denying that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driver of the bus, besides employment and salary being drawn also disputed. act of the were 6. The Tribunal proceeded to frame the following i 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and driving of R.1, driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 5001, on 28.07.2019, and caused death of Mallimoggala Appaji? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If how much and from whom? 3. To what relief? issues; negligent so. 7. In order to prove the case of the claimants, PWs.1 examined. Exs.A-1 to A-7 respondents, there was neither oral adduced. to 4 were were marked and on behalf of nor documentary evidence 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rendered definitive finding that the because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus accident occurred but 3 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 not the deceased. With regard to the other issue, based on evidence of the employer i.e., PW.3 and considering the salary being reflected in the Provident Fund declarations made by the employer, which came to be confirmed by PW.4, who is the Provident Fund Regional Officer, the salary has been assessed as Rs.8,500/- p.m. In addition to the same, the Tribunal has provided future prospects, other conventional heads in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. D.T.CJ and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi^, ultimately, determining the compensation as Rs. 16,76,500/- payable with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Assailing the same, the present Appeal is preferred by appellant APSRTC. 9. Heard Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the appellant and Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/claimants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant APSRTC mainly contended that the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded on Ex.A-7, which is only Xerox copy of the pension proceedings, issued by the Provident '(2009) 6 see 121 2(2017) 16 see 680 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of2022 Fund Commissionerate and Ex.A-6 salary certificate issued by Tummidi Textiles, Rajahmahendravaram in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was employed in private company viz., Tummidi Textiles and was paid salary before the incident occurred and the aforesaid piece of evidence would not clearly establish the factum of deceased employment and also the salary drawn as claimed. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to aforesaid aspects are not based on cogent evidence, therefore, the same suffers from perversity. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants supported the Award passed by the Tribunal by contending that the evidence of PW.3, who was employer, coupled with Ex.A-6 salary certificate, is sufficient to come to conclusion that the deceased was employed and was drawing salary of Rs. 12,500/- p.m. and further that the evidence of RW.4, who is Provident Fund Regional Officer and Ex.A.7 Xerox copy of the pension proceedings also fortify aforesaid stand meaning thereby the evidence - both documentary as well as corroborative oral evidence, is more than sufficient to come to conclusion that the deceased was employed as Salesman and drawing salary of Rs. 12,500/- p.m. though the Tribunal has assessed salary as Rs.8,500/- per month, the findings recorded / c 5 % CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 by Tribunal do not suffer from any perversity, it cannot be said that the findings recorded are without evidence at all. He also contended that the Tribunal has only granted loss of consortium to claimant/wife, but not remaining claimants and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi^; Magma National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram^ and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod'^, even the remaining claimants are also entitled for loss of consortium and the conventional heads have to be accordingly worked in the process of awarding just and fair compensation. 12. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 13. The only point canvassed in the present Appeal is with respect to determination of quantum of compensation. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the evidence considered by the Tribunal is not sufficient to come to conclusion that the deceased was employed as Salesman with Tummidi Textiles, Rajahmahendravaramu, owned by PW.3 and was being paid salary of Rs.8,500/-. In order to appreciate the said contention, the evidence of PW.3, who is the employer, and PW.4 ^(2018) 18 see 130 ‘*(2022) see OtiLine Se 1683 \ CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 who is the Government Officer working as Provident Fund Enforcement Officer, has to be looked into, besides Exs.A.6 and A.7, which are salary certificate and Xerox copy of the pension proceedings. 15. The evidence of aforesaid two witnesses, who are unrelated to the deceased, goes to show that deceased was engaged as Salesman on 01.06.2018, was working with Tummidi Textiles when the accident had occurred. Though the evidence of P.W.3 suggested that he was paid Rs.12,500/- per month, in support of which, Ex.A.6 came to be marked, however, the Provident Fund declaration made by the Company only disclosed salary of deceased as Rs.8,500/- per month. Even, PW.4, in his evidence, has categorically stated that the Xerox copy of pension proceedings came to be verified with original records maintained by their office and found to be true, and as per which, the salary as was paid to deceased was Rs.8,500/-. per month. The Tribunal, considering aforesaid evidence of P.W.3 and PW.4 and Exs.A-6 and A-7, has come to conclusion that the deceased was in private employment as Salesman and was drawing salary of Rs.8,500/- per month as on the date of accident. These findings and ^conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are based on both oral and ^documentary evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that there is 4 7 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 no basis for such findings. Merely because second view is possible, the view expressed by the Tribunal cannot be discarded. At any rate, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to contend that the evidence on record is not sufficient to come to the said conclusion. This Court is not convinced with the said submission, inasmuch the two independent witnesses spoke about petitioner’s employment and salary and in the absence of any contra evidence to disbelieve the same, the same cannot be discarded. as 16. Now coming to the other aspect, whether claimants have been awarded just and fair compensation, on perusal of the Award, it is evident that Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the extent of 1®* claimant have been awarded. 17. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants I had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. Division Bench of this Court had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company 1 8 CGR. J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana^, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandaiam MS.General Insurance Co. Ltd.®, Surekha v. Santosh^, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf AM® and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod'^. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is also granting the above reliefs to the respondents/clai mants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi^, Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram®, Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod^, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur®, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo 10 this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as Rs.48,400/- 5 MAGMANo.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 ®(2022) 14 see 712 ’(2021) 16 see 467 ^2021) 17 see 148 5(2021) 11 see 780 2024 see OnLine SG 1901 10 \ M % 9 . CGR, J. MAGMA. No,380 of 2022 (per claimant), Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case’'®. 19. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as mentioned below; S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees Net Annual Income Rs.8,500/-x 12 = Rs. 1,02,000/- 1 Future prospects (at the age of 37 years) Total Income Rs.40,800/- (i.e., 40% of the income) 2 Rs. 1,42,800/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4*^) 3 Rs.35,700/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.1,07,100/- 15 xRs. 1,07,100/- = Rs.16,06,500/- 5 Multiplier of 15 for the age of 37 years Conventional Heads: Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- X 5) Rs. 18,150/- (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) 6 (ii) Loss of Estate (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- 7 Total Compensation Rs.18,84,800/- 20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the respondents 1 to 5/cIaimants are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.18,84,800/- as just and fair compensation with interest at the rate 10 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.380 of 2022 of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellant - Corporation shall deposit the compensation amount, as aforesaid, with costs and interest, minus the amount, if any, already deposited, within one month before the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 18,84,800/-, the claimant - wife is entitled for an 21. amount of Rs.7,84,800/- and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.4,40,000/- each, who are minor daughters then, and claimants 4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.1,10,000/- each, who are father and mother of deceased. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid 22. terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 23. 1®* claimant before the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shailLstand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge: Kovvur, West Godavari District. (Along with records if any) f/' ' / / 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Pradesh at SAM TAC 's HIGH COURT DATED:17/07/2025 I ! f ^ 2 ^ AUG 2075 M ^ . Current Section JUDGMENT + DECREE MAGMA No. 380 of 2022 1^ i; DISMISSING THE MAGMA i