V APHC010837622015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI H B THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUN TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jyLQTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 233 OF 2025 Between: Regional Manager , Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rajahmundry Bus Complex, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Pedapudi Ramanamma, W/o. late Ramana, Hindu, aged 28 years, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Anahra Pradesh. 2. Pedapudi Vishnu Mahesh, S/o. late Ramana, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Narayanapuram, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Pedapudi Durga Satish, S/o. late Ramana, Hindu, aged 20 years, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. (Respondent No.2 and 3 are declared as majors vide court order dt. 18.02.2025 in IA.Nos.1 and 2/2023 and mother is discharged as their guardian.) Hindu, aged 23 years, Rajahmundry, East / 4. Pedapudi Satyanarayana, S/o. late Tirupatamma, Hindu, aged 60 Years, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pedapudi Chilakamma, W/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12; Narayanapuram, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. / 5. Rajahmundry, East ... Respondents/Petitioners 6. Hanmantha gari Kishan, S/o. Lakshmayya APSRTC driver on bus 'Bearing No. AP 28 Z 149, Jeedimetia Depot. Hindu, aged 35 years. (Respondent No. 6 is not necessary party) ...Respondent/1** Respondent in MVOP No.281 of 2013 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Moto Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree Dt. 17-11-2014, made in OP.No.281 of 2013 on the file of the Court of V Addl. District Judge -Cum-MACT, East Godavari Dist, Rajahmundry, A.P., This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.N.Vasudeva Reddy(SC FOR APSRTC) Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. N Siva Reddy for the Respondents 1 to 5 papers This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the hereby allowed in part. 2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is hereby from Rs.7,70,000/- to Rs.7,25,000/-, with proportionate costs, with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realization. same is / 3. That the respondent N0.2/APSRTC shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioner Nos.4 of the deceased are entitled to and 5/parents an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- each towards their respective share and they are permitted to withdraw the same. That the rest of the terms and conditions, as weii apportionment made by the Tribunal towards entitlement of claimants, in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. That there will be no order as to costs. 4. compensation to the other 5. 6. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, 1. The V Additional District Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims East Godavari, Dist, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Two CD Copies Tribunal, PR sree / HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 decree IWACMA NO. 233 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART WITHOUT COSTS APHC010837622015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Si'0 0 THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVU MlsCELLANFnt iq Appeal is filed under Section 173 Judgment and Decree Dt. 17-11-2014, of the Court of V Additional District Rajahmundry, A.P. Between: Regional Manager . Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rajahmundry Bus Complex, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. appeal NO: 233 OF 907^ of the Moto Vehicles Act, against the made in OP.No. 281 of 2013 on the file Judge -Cum-MACT, East Godavari Dist, ■ .Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Pedapudi Ramanamma, W/o. late Ramana Door No. 73-12-2/12, f District, Anahra Pradesh. 2. Pedapudi Vishnu Mahesh , Hindu, aged 28 years, R/o. Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari S/o. late Ramana, Hindu, aged 23 years . Narayanapuram, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Pedapudi Durga Satish, S/o. Rajahmundry, East late Ramana, Hindu, aged 20 years, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari Door No. 73-12-2/12, Narayanapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. (Respondent No.2 and 3 dt.18.02.2025 in IA.Nos.1 and 2/2023 guardian.) 4. Pedapudi Satyanarayana,, S/o. late Tirupatamma, Hindu Years, R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, f Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. Pedapudi Chilakamma, W/o. R/o. Door No. 73-12-2/12, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. are declared as majors vide court order and mother is discharged as their aged 60 Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, East Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 56 years, Rajahmundry, East Narayanapuram ... Respondents/Petitioners 6. Hanmantha APSRTC driver gari Kishan, S/o. Lakshmayya Hindu, aged 35 years, on bus 'Bearing No. AP 28 Z 149, Jeedimetia Depot. (Respondent No. 6 is not necessary party) ...Respondent/1®* Respondent In MVOP No.281 of 2013 jA NO: 3 OF 2015rMACMAMP 5Qq« np 2015 Pew,on under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances s ated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree Dt 17-11- 2014, made in OP.No. 281 of 2013 on the filed of the Court of V Addl. District udge -Cum-MACT, East Godavari Dist, Rajahmundry, A.P., Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N Counsel for the Respondents: SRI The Court made the following order: VASUDEVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) N SIVA REDDY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS I M.A.C.M.A.No.233 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rajahmundry (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 dated 17.11.2014. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 149 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.l to 5, who are wife, children, and parents of one Pedapudi Ramana (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) respectively, are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent No.6 is the driver of the crime bus. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 3. 4. Tribunal is that: i). On 12.07.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on the road, when he reached near Usha Company, Balangar village and mandal, the crime bus driven by the 1®^ respondent 2 a rash and negligent horn, hit the deceased, in manner without blowing resulted the deceased sustained serious injuries. Then he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, treatment, the deceased succumbed While undergoing to injuries. 11). By the date of incident, the deceased i working IS as watchman in Sagar Residency and earnmg earning Rs.3,000/- by Rs.7,000/- per month. As well ironing the clothes of the iinmates in the said residency. Being dependents, compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and owner of the said crime bus. they claimed against the driver 5. The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed averments in the petition and pleaded that the occurred was not due to the respondent; that a false is foisted that the counter denying the accident that negligent driving of the 1 St against the l^t respondent; compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive. J thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 6. basing on the material: ‘1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and to cause the accident in question? 2.Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for the cause of accident? 3.Whether the l^t respondent driver of crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license by the time of accident? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the petition with interest? and 5.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A. 1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, 1®^ respondent/driver was examined as R.W.l, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 4 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having conclusion that the accident occurred due come to the to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1 that the claimants are entitled for the Rs.7,70,000/-, with interest at 6% St respondent, held compensation of per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned present appeal was 10. counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants. 11. Now, short point that arises for determination i “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if to what extent?” IS so. 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased i the accident and involvement of crime bus. It is a fact that m no - 5 appeal was preferred by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the testimony of P.W.2 13. coupled with EXs.A. 1 and A.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet categorically show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus, resulted death of the deceased. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for 14. the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier of 16 instead of 15 when the deceased was aged about 38 years, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In view of the said contention, this Court perused the 15. material available on record. In the absence substantial proof regarding actual income of the deceased, by considering the avocation of the deceased as watchmen, the Tribunal rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. 6 16. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay SethV, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as foUows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition offuture prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lai Jain. Three aspects need to be clariifed. The ifrst pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraph No. 30, Sarla Verma lays down: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to he made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra case, the general practice is to apply standardised deduction, several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR ® 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3’-^) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” one Having considered 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 1 In the case on hand, there are five claimants depending 17. on the deceased, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4*^ from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.45,000/-. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Honlile Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr^, at Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as follows : 18. it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier’, has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the 11 12 2 2017 (3) see 315 8 victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168. Motor Vehicles Act method involves the an 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all the over (emphasis supplied) country. 9 The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years is 15. The total loss of dependency is 19. determined at Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 15). It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering 20. the facts and circumstances of case as well material available amount of Rs.50,000/- under record, rightly awarded the heads of funeral expenses, transport charges, loss of , loss of consortium, loss of guidance and car, loss of an on estate love and affection, which requires no interference of this Court. In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- against the respondent Nos.l and 2. In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable to be considered partly. Thus, the point is answered 21. accordingly. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. Consequently, restricted the compensation awarded to the 22. !! * w I 10 \ claimants from Rs. 7,70,000/- costs, with j date shall deposit the months from the date such deposit, deceased fr frs.7,25,000/-, from the date with proportionate petition till ^^o.2/APSRTC within two 'Tribunal. interest at 6% of of realization. The respondent nmount before the petitioner Nos.4 and entire compensation of this judgment On the 5/parents of the frs.l,12,500/- are entitled an ^ount of each towards their permitted to withdraw respective share and they are the same. The rest of the terms made by the conditions, towards and as well apportionment Tribunal claimants, in entitlement of the order of the compensation Tribunal shall to the other remained intact. 'The Tribunal aforesaid shall proceed to adjusting the pay the amount in the terms. amount, if Interim orders any, already paid, granted earlier if any, stand pending if any. vacated. Miscellaneous petitions stand closed Sd/- B JOSEPH assistant registrar //true copy// To, SEC N OFFICER ' The V Additional District Judge -Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Pradesh (with Past Godavari Dist, 2- OneCCto Tribunal, Pajahmundry. Andhra Sn. N Vasudeva Reddy records) (SC FOR APSRTC) fOPUCJ One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Two CD Copies 5. 6. PR sree HIGH COURT DATED;26/06/2025 \ JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 233 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART WITHOUT COSTS