APHC010766682017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 742/2025 Between: 1. APSRTC, HYD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. MANNAPURAM BHANUMATHI SRIKAKULAM DIST AND FIVE OTHERS, S/O LATE GOWRI SANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT D.NO. 5/3, OPPOSITE AR POLICE QUARTERS ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MANNAPURAM PAVAN KALYAN, W/O LATE GOWRI SANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. STUDENT, RESIDING AT D.NO. 5/3, OPPOSITE AR POLICE QUARTERS ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. MANNAPURAM SAI PRIYATAM, D/O LATE GOWRI SANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS. STUDENT, RESIDING AT D.NO. 13, OPPOSITE AR POLICE QUARTERS ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MANNAPURAM SAI KRISHNA, S/O LATE GOWRI SANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. STUDENT, RESIDING AT D.NO. 5/3, OPPOSITE AR POLICE QUARTERS ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MANNAPURAM SAVITRAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT D.NO. 5/3, OPPOSITE AR POLICE QUARTERS ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MANNAPURAM BHANUMATHI, 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN 6. KADUPURU RAMA RAO, S/O APPALA SURI . AGED 46 YEARS. DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS NO. AP-29-Z-3768 BEJJIPURAM VILLAGE, LAVERU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge. Srikakulam passed in M.V 0 P No 517/ 2014 dated 29.06.2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 114 OF 2017 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 condone the delay of 80 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal District Judge, Srikakulam passed in M.V.O.P.No. 517/2014 dated 29.06.2016 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 152 OF 2017 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 grant stay of exeuction of decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge. Srikakulam passed in MV0P No.517/ 2014 dated 29.06.2016 pending disposal of the above MACMA IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 vacate the interim order dated 05.01.2018 in MACMA MP No.152 of 2017 in MACMA Sr.No.657 of 2017 before this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.742 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after, for short ‘Corporation’) preferred present appeal challenging order dated 29.06.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.517/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, aggrieved by the determination of compensation in favour of deceased claimants. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows: (a) Claimants are five in number, being wife, two minor sons and one minor daughter and mother of deceased instituted claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation of ₹20,00,000/- along with future interest. Husband of 1st claimant, aged 42 years, was in service as A.R. constable at relevant point. He, along with his minor son, while proceeding by walk towards A.R. Police Quarters, at about 2 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 21.00 hours on 15.05.2014, was hit by Corporation Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 3768, which was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam. The accident stated to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of bus, resulting in the deceased sustaining multiple bodily injuries, though he was immediately shifted to private hospital, was declared dead by then. The incident was reported to police, who registered crime No.176 of 2014 against driver of bus and after investigation, charge sheet came to be laid and taken cognizance by concerned court in C.C. No.842 of 2014. (b) The deceased being A.R. Police Constable, was stated to be earning ₹24,503/- per month, therefore, claim was instituted for ₹20,00,000/-. 1st respondent, being the driver, merely adopted counter filed by 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent filed counter inter alia stating that the driver of the bus cannot be said to be negligent in causing the accident, it was the deceased who was in fact negligent as he was in drunken state, therefore, when bus was passing, he suddenly stepped onto the road and dashed the bus and fell down, thereby causing serious injuries. In a way, it is a case of neither no negligence nor contributory negligence. In 3 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 the counter, further, it was also denied regarding deceased earnings, age and resultantly, the amount claimed. (c) In order to justify the claim, 5th claimant got examined as P.W.1, an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2, and Administrative Officer of District Police as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. For respondents, 1st respondent - driver was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. (d) Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by other parties, Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased-Manapuram Gowri Sankara Rao, S/o late Narayana Murty died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident that took place on 15.05.2014 at 21:00 hours opposite to A.R. Police quarters on NH.16 road, Etcherla Police Station limits, Srikakulam District? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP:29/Z-3768 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased-Manapuram Gowri Sankara Rao, S/o late Narayana Murthy? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 4 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 (e) The Tribunal while answering 1st issue has considered the evidence of P.W.1, in particular P.W.2, who was eyewitness to the accident and Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A2 – Charge Sheet and Ex.A3- Post Mortem Report and Ex.A4 – report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ex.A5 – Inquest report to come to conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent – driver. Though the respondents have taken stand that the deceased was in drunken state and that he alone was responsible for getting hit by bus, Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, found that as neither postmortem report nor any other independent evidence even remotely suggested deceased was in the state of intoxication, rejected said plea. Insofar as the assessment of compensation was concerned, age of deceased was considered as 42 and his income came to be considered as ₹21,997/- after deducting professional tax, HRA and additional HRA, based on Ex.A6 – salary certificate and also the evidence of P.W.3. After extending the benefit of future prospects @30% and deducting 1/4th of his earnings towards personal expenses, ultimately Tribunal arrived at the compensation towards loss of Estate as ₹36,03,096/-, towards conventional heads, Tribunal has granted ₹20,000/- towards loss 5 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 of consortium and ₹2,500/- towards funeral expenses, in total had assessed the compensation as ₹36,25,596/-. However, as the claimants had claimed compensation of ₹20,00,000/-, Tribunal has restricted compensation and merely awarded the said amount along with subsequent interest @ 9%. (f) Assailing the award of compensation, Corporation preferred present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Y.Phani Babu, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. 5. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both parties. 6. The points for consideration in this appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity? If so, (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation? (iii) To what relief? 6 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Point No.(i): 7. Learned counsel for appellant had raised two contentions, firstly regarding the insurer's liability to pay compensation and the other being computation of compensation. Addressing the 1st point, learned counsel contended that since the deceased was in drunken state, Tribunal miserably failed in imposing liability on it when there was no fault of driver of the bus. Elaborating the said submission, he has taken through this Court to the contents of written statements/counter filed by respondents before Tribunal and also evidence of R.W.1. In regard to the other contention on quantum, he contended that Tribunal erred in determining monthly earnings of deceased as ₹21,997/- without deducting income tax component from the same, hence is clearly erroneous and perverse. 8. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/ claimants, on the other hand, tried to support the impugned order by contending that though the Corporation had tried to set up stand that deceased was in drunken state, neither the evidence which is on record adduced by the claimants nor the evidence of 7 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Corporation, nowhere even remotely suggested that deceased was tested and found to be under intoxication and in the absence of any such medical report of breath analyzer, one cannot presume the status of deceased to be in drunken state, therefore, Tribunal has rightly rendered findings in that regard, which require no interference. (b) Insofar as computation of monthly earnings is concerned, as deceased was government employee, the salary certificate clearly indicated the amount with specific components of deductions, in the absence of any income tax being deducted, it cannot be said that Tribunal committed error in computing monthly income without factoring income tax. He also contended that at relevant point of time, the slab rate that attracts income tax was ₹2,00,000/- and that as the income of deceased after complying necessary deductions would not exceed taxable income of ₹2,00,000/-, question of deducting any income tax does not arise. Lastly, he contended that though Tribunal has assessed and determined the quantum of compensation as ₹36,25,596/- had only granted ₹20,00,000/- on the ground that the claim petition was made for the said sum, which is not in 8 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 consonance with scheme of the Act and various judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and fair compensation as assessed rather than restricting it to the amount claimed, besides it has not considered to grant the amounts under conventional heads in line with those specified by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 9. (a) The deceased was admittedly in police service as A.R. Police Constable and aged 42 years. As per the salary certificate under Ex.A6, he was drawing gross salary of ₹24,503/-. It is not in dispute that he died on account of being hit by bus belonging to Corporation. In order to prove that the accident occurred and that the driver of bus was negligent, P.W.2 - eyewitness was examined, besides marking Exs.A1 to A5. The initial burden lies on claimants to prove that the driver of bus was negligent in causing the accident. Aforesaid evidence is sufficient to discharge their burden of proof. In the written statement, respondents have taken stand that driver of bus was not 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 9 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 responsible nor negligent in causing the accident, as the deceased was in drunken state and got injured. (b) It is the contention of Corporation that the deceased alone was responsible and negligent, or at least, he was also equally negligent, meaning thereby, there is some amount of contributory negligence. In order to prove the same, on behalf of Corporation, except examining the driver of bus as R.W.1, no other witness or any other documentary proof was produced. The evidence of R.W.1 is merely a self-serving statement. In order to prove that a person is in intoxicated state, either the postmortem report has to indicate the same or there should be any other medical evidence to support such version. In the absence of any medical report or other evidence, the Tribunal has rendered specific finding that Corporation failed to discharge its burden to rebut the stand of claimants. 10. As regards reliability of FIR and charge sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. 10 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others2 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Crux and another3, which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another4. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahoo and others5, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. This Court, unequivocally, is of the same view that the respondent Corporation failed to rebut the evidence of 2 (2018) 5 SCC 656 3 (2013) 10 SCC 646 4 (2023) 13 SCC 510 5 (2025) 2 SCC 599 11 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 claimants that deceased was in drunken state and that the driver of bus was not negligent in causing the accident, hence the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect are justified and does not suffer from perversity. 11. Coming to the aspect of quantification of compensation, the prime factor that needs to be considered is earnings of deceased. In the present case, as the deceased was government servant, the salary certificate came to be marked as Ex.A6. In support of the said salary certificate, P.W.3 – Administrative Officer of District Police was examined. The salary certificate had indicated that deceased was earning gross salary of ₹24,503/- and the same was subjected to deductions of ₹1,384/- towards HRA, ₹922/- towards additional HRA and ₹200/- towards professional tax. The Tribunal, therefore, after deducting aforesaid three components has arrived at the net salary as ₹21,997/-. The salary certificate did not mention anything about deduction of income tax. As deceased was Government servant and that deduction of tax is to be made by the employer under Section 192(1) of Income Tax Act, the salary normally would be credited only after deduction of TDS, which is not found in the present 12 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 case. Tribunal has therefore come to conclusion and determined the income of the deceased as ₹21,997/- per month, which cannot be found fault with. Having assessed monthly income, future prospects were added @30% and 1/4th of the same was deducted for his personal expenses, which is in line with the dictum laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another6. Conventional Heads: 12. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents/claimants' contention with regard to the grant of compensation towards conventional heads needs to be considered. The Tribunal has merely granted ₹20,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹2,500/- towards funeral expenses. As rightly contended, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants will be entitled for conventional heads viz., Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Magma National Insurance 6 (2009) 6 SCC 121 13 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others7, Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others 8 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.9., and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others10, this Court awards 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). Interest: 13. While concluding the arguments, learned counsel for appellant claimed that Tribunal has awarded excessive interest @9% per annum, rather it ought to have restricted the interest to 7.5% per annum. In Marreddy Sowmya’s case (supra 11), while considering grant of interest, 7.5% as awarded by Tribunal was held to be not in commensurate with the line of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, it was enhanced to 9%. 7 (2018) 11 SCC 780 8 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 9 (2021) 11 SCC 780 10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 14 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Therefore, following the same, the rate of interest as awarded by Tribunal @9% per annum is sustained. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as mentioned below: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹21,997/- x 12 = ₹2,63,964/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 42 years) ₹79,189/- (i.e., 30% of the income) Total Income ₹3,43,153/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) ₹85,788/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹2,57,365/- 5 Multiplier of 14 for the age of 42 years 14 x ₹2,57,365/- = ₹36,03,110/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) ₹2,42,000/- (₹48,400/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7 Total Compensation ₹38,81,410/- 15. The Tribunal having come to conclusion that the claimants were entitled to total compensation of ₹36,25,596/- has only awarded an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as claimed in the claim 15 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 petition. This Court now having examined the quantum of compensation as assessed by Tribunal whether to be just and fair, has come to conclusion and arrived at an amount of ₹38,81,410/-. The respondents/claimants have not filed any cross-appeal nor independent appeal challenging the order passed by Tribunal to the extent of not granting just and fair compensation. Learned counsel for respondents addressing this issue has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited v. Marreddy Sowmya and others11, in particular paragraph No.16, to contend that even in the absence of either filing appeal or cross appeal, still they are entitled to be considered for grant of just and fair compensation. Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment reads as under: “16. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation 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. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The 11 2025 SCC OnLine AP 466 16 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others 12 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited13, Surekha v. Santosh14, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali15 and Smt.Anjali 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.” 16. Respectfully following aforesaid judgments, the present MACMA is dismissed, however, compensation is enhanced over and above granted by the Tribunal to the claimants as just and fair compensation in the following terms: i) The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced compensation of ₹38,81,410/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) Out of the total compensation amount of ₹38,81,140/-, 1st claimant - wife is entitled for an amount of ₹9,21,410/- and 12 MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 13 (2022) 14 SCC 712 14 (2021) 16 SCC 467 15 (2021) 17 SCC 148 17 CGR, J MACMA No.742 of 2025 claimants 2 and 4 – sons of the deceased are entitled for an amount of ₹7,30,000/- each and 3rd claimant – daughter of the deceased is entitled for an amount of ₹9,00,000/- and 5th claimant – mother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of ₹6,00,000/-. iii) The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month, failing which claimants are entitled to recover the same in accordance with law. iv) The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. (iv) The costs throughout are made in favour of the 1st claimant before the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 11.08.2025 SS