APHC010492862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY Jg* TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ‘O Mm P "9M PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 383 OF 2022 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Regional Manager, RTC Depot, Eluru, West Godavari District. it's ...APPELLANT AND 1. Koppineedi Adi Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 58 years, R/o. D.No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Malakapalli. Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari Dsitrict. 2. Koppineedi Prasad Babu, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o. D.No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Koppineedi Abraham Lincoln, S/o. Venkateswara Rao Aged 37 years, R/o. D.No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Malakapalli Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari Dsitrict. 4. Moganti Jyothi, W/o.Naga Vijaya Bhaskar, Aged 35 years, R/o. D.No.7- 57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedi, Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi Mandal West / f Godavari Distict. 5. Koppineedi Veeramma, W/o. Sriramulu, Aged 58 years, R/o. D.No.7- 57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedi, Malkapalli Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, Kovvur PJCJC. 6. Vaddi Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Venkatarao, Aged 48 years. Driver of APSRTC, R/o. D.No.1-121 Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. Main Road, Gopavaram Village ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. 150/2019, dated: 25-03-2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vinod Tarlada (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Parimi Rayudu, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Namburi Sreemannarayan a Respondent No.6, and the material Kumar Rama for This Court doth order and decree: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed; 2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced over and above granted by the Tribunal to the claimants in MVOP. No. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kovvuru, as just and fair compensation in the following terms: i. That the claimants/respondents be and enhanced compensation of Rs.12,70,260/-as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim are hereby granted / petition till realization; ii. That out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 12,70,260/- 1st claimant - wife be and is hereby entitled for an amount of Rs.7,50,260/-: the iii. That the claimants 2 to 5 be and are hereby entitled for Rs.1,30,000/- each, who are the sons, daughter and mother of deceased; 3. That the appellant Insurance Company be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 12,70,260/- with costs and interest, minus the amount if any already deposited, within a period of one month before the Tribunal; 4. 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: 5. That the entire costs in this case be and are hereby awarded in favour of the 1st claimant before the Tribunal. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District and Sessions Judge: Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2. Two CD Copies TAC -cum- IX Additional t HIGH COURT DATED:17/07/2025 ^OFANO^ I 2t AUG 2II75 'S Cgrrenl Section DECREE MACMA No. 383 of 2022 eo, DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010492862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [i] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY lo TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE IS- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN jVlOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISHELLANEOllS appfai NO: 383 OF 2077 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act., aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. 150/2019, dated; 25-03-2022 file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, r Regional Manager, RTC Depot, Eiuru, West Godavari District. Rep. by it's ...appellant AND 1. Koppineedi Adi Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara D.No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Mandal, West Godavari Dsitrict. 2. Koppineedi Prasad Babu, S/o. Venkateswara D.No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Mandal, West Godavari District. Rao, Aged 58 years, R/o. Malakapalli. Village, Tallapudi Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o. Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi 3. Koppineedi Abraham Lincoln, S/o. Venkateswara R/o. D. No.7-57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi West Godavari Dsitrict. 4. Moganti Jyothi, W/o.Naga Vijaya Bhaskar, Aged 57, Cheruvu Gattu Veedi, Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi Godavari Distict. 5. Koppineedi Veeramma, W/o. Sriramulu Cheruvu Gattu Veedi, Malkapalli Village Godavari District, Kovvur PJCJC. 6. Vaddi Rajeswara Rao, S/o. APSRTC, R/o. D.No.1-121, Main Road, Gopavaram Village Mandal, West Godavari District. Rao, Aged 37 years, Malakapalli Tallapudi Mandal, # 35 years, R/o. D.No.7- Mandal, West Aged 58 years, R/o. D.No.7-57, Tallapudi Mandal, West Venkatarao, Aged 48 years. Driver of Nidadavole ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2099 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Award praying that in the circumstances stated dt. 25-03-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum West Godavari, Kovvur, pending IX Additional District and Sessions Judge disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : (SC FOR SRI PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI NAMBURISREEMANNARAYANA The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010492862022 IN T^E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (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: 383/2022 Between: 1.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP. BY IT'S REGIONAL MANAGER, RTC DEPOT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.KOPPINEEDI ADI LAKSHMI, W/0. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.7-57, CHERUVU GATTU VEEDHI, MALAKAPALLI. VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT. 2.KOPPINEEDI PRASAD BABU, , S/0. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 38 Y, R/0. D.NO.7-57, CHERUVU GATTU VEEDHI, MALAKAPALLI VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.KOPPINEEDI ABRAHAM LINCOLN, S/0. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED 37 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.7-57, CHERUVU GATTU VEEDHI, MALAKAPALLI TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT. 4.MOGANTI, W/O.NAGA VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED 35 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.7-57, CHERUVU GATTU VEEDI, MALAKAPALLI TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAV SRI DISTICT. 5.KOPPINEEDI VEERAMMA, W/0. SRIRAMULU, AGED 58 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.7-57, CHERUVU GATTU VEEDI, MALKAPALLI VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOWUR PJOC. 6.VADDI RAJESWARA RAO, S/0. VENKATARAO, AGED 48 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC, R/0. D.N0.1 -121, MAIN ROAD, GOPAVARAM VILLAGE, NIDADAVOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. '/ILALGE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. 150/2019, dt. 25-03-2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavan, Kovvur lA 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 pleased to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal against Decree and Award dt. 25-03-2022 passed in MVOP No. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavaril Kovvur 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Award dt. 25-03-2022 passed in MVOP no. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FORAPSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARI Ml RAMA RAYUDU 2.NAMBURI SREEMANNARAYANA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.383 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 25.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvuru. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Deceased while riding motorcycle and proceeding to * Malakpalli from Tallapudi, on 18.05.2019, at about 03.30 p.m., met with an accident, on account of bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1406 belonging to the Corporation hit the bike from backside, because of which he fell down and bus tyres ran over his legs, resulting in grevious injuries to his leg and other parts of his body. He was shifted to Sai Hospitals, Rajahmundry and underwent leg amputation surgery, and while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed on 10.06.2019. Deceased was aged 58 years and I was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by real estate business. I I 2 CGRJ MAGMA No.383 of 2022 (b) Wife, two sons, daughter and mother collectively preferred claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of death. (c) First respondent therein - driver of bus remained ex parte and 2'^'^ respondent Corporation contested the claim by filing written statement inter alia denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also disputing that the adcident occurred account of the rash and negligent act of driver of bus, besides the amount claimed to be earned by deceased. on (d) On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.AI to All and Ex.XI and on behalf of respondents, either oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (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 R.1, driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1406 on 18.05.2019 and caused death of Koppineedi Venkateswara Rao? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?” X. 3 CGR,J MAGMA No.383 of 2022 With respect to the issue, Tribunal, after analyzing the (f) evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of the bus but not the deceased. With respect to the quantum of compensation, the medical expenses claimed under Exs.A7 to A9 as confirmed by the oral evidence of P.W.3, who treated the deceased, were accepted and further though claimants maintained that deceased was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month through real estate business, as no reliable evidence was brought in, the Tribunal has taken notional income of deceased by comparing with that of minimum daily wage and assessed the income as Rs.5,000/- per month. After considering his age as 58 years, by adding up future prospects of 10% and deduction of 1/3''^ towards personal expenditure, arrived the compensation payable is Rs.3,96,000/-. Besides, the conventional heads were also granted, however, loss of consortium was allowed only to 1®^ claimant/wife and in total compensation of Rs. 10,12,456/- came to be determined. (g) Assailing the isame, present appeal is preferred. / , \ \ 4 CGRJ MAGMA No.383 of 2022 3. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel, appearing for respondents 1 to 5. Learned counsel for appellants has mainly advanced arguments on the quantum that is determined. There are two components of quantum of compensation in the present case. With respect to the medical bills, it is contended that except for producing medical bills Ex.A7 to A9, no person who is competent to speak of same has been examined, but for going by the evidence of P.W.3 - doctor, who can only speak of the treatment given but not about the genuineness and veracity of the medical bills. With respect to the monthly earnings as assessed for Rs.5,000/-, learned counsel for appellant submits that the same has no basis and as claimants have not let in any piece of evidence to show that deceased was in real estate business and Tribunal ought not have been considered aforesaid amount earnings, thereby determining the compensation suffers from perversity. 4. as 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants tried to support the award passed by the Tribunal. He has contended 5 CGR,J MAGMA No.383 of 2022 that EXS.A7 to A9 are medical bills, which have been spoken of P.W.3 - Doctor who treated deceased and cross-examination, the Corporation did not elicit anything to disbelieve the medical bills and even, it is not their case that deceased had not been admitted in the hospital and undergone any treatment and it is a serious case of leg amputation, for which, he succumbed later. He further contended that insofar monthly earnings as assessed by Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is yet bare minimum amount and even if minimum daily wages is to be taken consideration, it is roughly at Rs.300/- per day, then, monthly earnings would be around Rs.9,000/-, rather. Tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/-, which is far realistic, therefore, the order does not suffer from any infirmity on the aforesaid aspect. He further contended that claimants were not awarded just and fair compensation inasmuch as out of the monthly annual income assessed, excessive deduction of has been made, whereas the deductions ought to have made at 1/4*^ considering number of dependents as 4 to 6 in terms of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another^ and further that conventional heads are not awarded in consonance with the law even in the as ^ (2009) 6 see 121 6 CGRJ MAGMA No.383of2022 laid down in the above mentioned case, therefore, the amounts so awarded have to be revised accordingly. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. Now, the points that arise for consideration are; I. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs interference as claimed by the Appellant - Insurance Company? II. Whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation even in the absence of any appeal or cross-appeal by them? III. To what relief? Point No.l: 8. It is not in dispute that deceased met with accident 18.05.2019 and later, he undergone treatment for leg amputation on account of bus tyres running over his legs and body. Even petitioner’s legs came to be amputated. While undergoing treatment, P.W.3 is the doctor who has treated the deceased and entire treatment was provided at his instancp. In furtherance of medical treatment, deceased has incurred expenditure towards medical bills which are claimed under Exs.A7 to Ex.A9. \ Corporation has also cross-examined P.W.3 and nothing has on \ 7 CGR,J MAGMA No.383 of 2022 • been elicited to disbelieve said bills. Tribunal has upon proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence has come to a definitive finding that the medical bills are genuine. When once the bills and also the doctor who provided treatment have supported the same, in the absence of any other contra material, the Tribunal has no choice rather than accepting the same, rightly so done in the present case. No other material is placed by Corporation to come to any other conclusion. Insofar as determination of monthly earnings are concerned. Tribunal has fixed the same as Rs.5,000/- per month i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum. Though claimants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Tribunal has proceeded to determine and fix the income on notional basis and that too at bare minimum level. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said approach. Therefore, these two contentions of counsel for appellant have no merit and are hereby rejected. Point No.2: 9. We now proceed to determine as to whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation under law. It is settled \ law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation / 8 CGR, J MAGMA No.383 of 2022 and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. Law on this aspect was recently summed up in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others^, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited^, Surekha v. Santosh'*, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali^ and SmtAnjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. As rightly contended by counsel for claimants, in terms of Sarla Varma Cases (supra), the deduction ought to have been 1/4*h of the earnings, but not 1/3'^^ having regard to the number of claimants in the present case. 2 MAGMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 ^ (2022) 14 see 712 ^(2021) 16 see 467 ^2021) 17 see 148 \ 9 CGRJ MAGMA No.383 of 2022 Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the . judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others ® Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others^, Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others®, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.®., and Rojalini Nayak and Others V. Ajit Sahoo and Othersthis Court awards the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, 11. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as f48,400/- (per • claimant), f18,150/- and ?18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case (Supra). 12. 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.5,000/-x 12 = Rs.60,000/- 1 ® (2017) 16 see 680 ^ (2018) 11 see 780 ® (2022) see Online Se 1682 ® (2021) 11 see 780 2024 see Online Se 1901 / 10 \ \ 10 CGR,J MAGMA No.383 of 2022 Future prospects (at the age of 58 years) Total Income Rs.6,000/- (i.e., 10% of the income) Rs.66,000/- 2 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4*^) Total Annual Loss of Dependency 3 Rs. 16,500/- 4 Rs.49,500/- 9 X Rs.49,500/- = Rs.4,45,500/- 5 Multiplier of 9 for the age of 58 years Conventional Heads: Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48'400/- X 5) 6 (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- 7 Medical Bills Rs.5,46,456/- Rs.12,70,256/- (rounded of to Rs.12,70,260/-) 8 Total Compensation 13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. No.383 of 2022 is dismissed, however, compensation is enhanced over and above granted by , the Tribunal to the claimants in MVOP. No. 150 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kovvuru, as just and fair compensation in the following terms: 1. The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced \ compensation of f12,70,260/- as just and fair, with interest \ 11 CGRJ MAGMA No.383 of 2022 @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim realization: petition till 2. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 12,70,260/-, the claimant - wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.7,50,260/- and claimants 2 to 5 are entitled for Rs. 1,30,000/- each, who are the sons, daughter and mother of deceased. ■ 3. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, as aforesaid, with costs and interest, minus the amount if any already deposited, within a period of one month before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 5. Entire costs in this 1®* claimant before the Tribunal. case are awarded in favour of the As a sequel, miscellaneous pending consideration jn this case shall stand closed. if any SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Chairman Motor Accident District and Sessions Judge; Kovvur Claims Tribunal West Godavari District. -cum- IX Additional 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Namburi Sreemannarayana Advocate 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies SAM (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at TAC HIGH COURT DATED;17/07/2025 g 2 1 AUG 20?5 I Current Section JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No. 383 of 2022 dismissing the MACMA