APHC011392882016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0SS4i A 4^ ¥ oo :d WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: .T?.t OF ?n9g Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its Depot Manager Narsipatnam Narsipatnam Visakhapatnam District. Depot, 2. A.P.S.R T.C rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND 1. Madem Ramayamma, W/o. late Veeresu resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aged about 56 years 2. Madem Atchibabu. S/o. late Veeresu A Aged about 32 years, resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam 3. Madem Sattibabu, S/o. late Veeresu District. Aged about 26 years, resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ... respondents/petitioners 1 to 3 .4 4 4. Rajana Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Chinnarao Aged about 44 years, APSRTC Driver Narsipatnam Depot, Kothaveedhi Narsipatnam Town, Narsipatnam Municipality Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS/1®^ RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1973, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam passed in MOP No.869 of 2015 dated 15-03-2016 the above named Appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Motor accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Advocate for the Appellant and SRI KALEPU YASHWANTH Advocate for Respondent. This court doth order and decree AS follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 2. The the Appellant-Corporation be and is hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by that Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount. If any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. That on such deposit 1 to 3 respondent/claimants be and are hereby permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the impugned order. / / ■ / ■ / V / 4. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. SD/- KJ.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions judge Visakhapatnam. (with records if any) 2. Two C.D Copies. TAC HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 323 OF 2025 f? g 19 SEP 2025 g ^// . Current Section ^ MACWIA IS DISMISSED. APHC011392882016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI i WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 323 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1973, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam passed in MOP No.869 of 2015 dated 15-03-2016 the above named Appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Motor accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C, rep. by its Depot Manager Narsipatnam, Depot Narsipatnam Visakhapatnam District. 2. A.P.S.R T.C rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND 1. Madem Ramayamma, W/o. late Veeresu Aged about 56 years, resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ^1 I 2. 2. Madem Atchibabu, S/o. late Veeresu / A Aged about 32 years, •.resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam ■ ■ i i District. 3. Madem Sattibabu, S/o. late Veeresu Aged about 26 years, resident of Neelampeta Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 4. Rajana Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Chinnarao Aged about 44 APSRTC Driver Narsipatnam Depot, Kothaveedhi Narsipatnam Town Narsipatnam Municipality Visakhapatnam District. i ' years. ...RESPONDENTS/1®^ RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2016 (MACMAMP 4205 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court grant stay of execution of decree passed by Chairman, Claims Tribunal Court may be pleased Motor Accidents cum XII Additional District and Sessions Judge. Visakhapatnam passed in MOP No.869/2015 dated 15.3.2016 pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Petitioners ; SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI KALEPU YASHWANTH The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC011392882016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 323 of 2025 Between: 1.A.P.S.R.T.C, REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER NARSIPATNAM DEPOT, NARSIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2.A.P.S.R.T.C, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT{S) AND 1.MADEM RAMAYAMMA, W/0 LATE VEERESU, ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEELAMPETA VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. AGED 2. MADEM ATCHIBABU, S/0 LATE VEERESU A AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEELAMPETA VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3.MADEM SATTIBABU, S/0 LATE VEERESU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEELAMPETA VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.RAJANA SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 LATE CHINNARAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, NARSIPATNAM DEPOT, KOTHAVEEDHI NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, DISTRICT. NARSIPATNAM TOWN, VISAKHAPATNAM > 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 ...RESPONDENT{S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1 .VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 4 1.KALEPU YASHWANTH The Court made the following: 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 JUDG M ENT: The present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’), assailing the order dated 15.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.869 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded to claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein), who are wife and children of late Madem Veeresu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), on account of his death in a motor accident. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the 2. Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. (i) The deceased was stated to be a rickshaw puller. On 05.07.2014, while he was proceeding on his rickshaw along with his St wife i.e., 1 claimant, they were hit by APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 31 Z 0135, which was proceeding from Narsipatnam Town to Chinthapalli Village. In the said accident, which occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus, the deceased died on the spot and the 1®* claimant sustained \ grievous injuries. A case was registered vide Crime No.211 of 2014 4 CGRJ M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 on the file of Narsipatnam Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C. against driver of the bus. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month rickshaw puller and aged 60 years at the time of accident. Based the same, a claim has been laid for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. as on (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are driver of offending bus and Depot Manager of the Corporation, remained ex parte and 3 ^ respondent-Corporation, through its Vice Chairman-cum- Managing Director, filed counter denying that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of the bus, besides disputing the age and earnings of the deceased. On behalf of claimants, 1®* claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.M to A5 were marked. On behalf of the Corporation, driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. (iii) (iv) Based on the pleadings and evidence let in by both parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 5.7.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus No.AP 31 Z 0135 by its driver? 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 % 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? (V) First issue came to be answered in favour of the claimants, holding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Consequently, the second issue has also been answered in favour of the claimants. The age of the deceased was assessed as 60 years, based on inquest report and post-mortem report, and his income was nationally assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month, having regard to the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer at relevant point of time. After deducting 1/3'"^ of annual income towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 7’, and upon adding the amounts payable under conventional heads, a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was determined to be awarded to the claimants, along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. (vi) Assailing the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the Corporation. Heard Sri Ch. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri 4. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for appellant- 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 Corporation, and Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for appellants mainly challenged the quantum of compensation. He contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month without any basis or evidence on record. The claimants have not produced any evidence in support of the claim that the deceased was rickshaw puller and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, therefore, the aforesaid finding rendered by the Tribunal is clearly perverse. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants 6. contended that the Tribunal has taken only notional income of Rs.4,500/-, which was the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer, and at any rate, the deceased, being the sole breadwinner, must be considered to have been earning some income and. therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered Rs.4,500/- as reasonable monthly income of the deceased, which cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. This Court has considered the submissions made on either 7. side and perused the record. 8. The present appeal assails only the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal and not the finding on liability. The deceased was claimed to be a rickshaw puller and earning \ ■' / 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of 2025 Rs.8,000/- per month. In support of the said claim, wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, who spoke about the aforesaid aspects. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that except for the statement of P.W.1, there was no other evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer i.e., at Rs.4,500/- per month. Though learned counsel for appellants contended that the said assessment was excessive and was not based on any evidence, this Court is not convinced with the said submission, inasmuch as the Tribunal has only adopted a notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of any other evidence to substantiate the earnings of the deceased. Moreover, the said amount has been considered. having regard to the minimum wages being paid to unskilled labourer at the relevant point of time. When the Tribunal has applied its mind to the evidence on 9. record and deemed the assessed income to be fair and reasonable. this Court, in normal course, should not interfere with such finding unless the same is shockingly perverse. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and determining compensation accordingly. Since the sole point raised regarding the quantum of 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.323 of2025 compensation is found to be without merit and no other point has been raised, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal i: dismissed. The appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the impugned order. IS As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. I SD/- K.J.RAJABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, ^ Accidents Claims Tribunal Court-cum-XII Add^itional District and Sessions judge Visakhapatnam. (with records if 2. One CC to SRI. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. KALEPU YASHWANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Prasesh Amaravathi. 5. Two C.D Copies. at TAC \ ( HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA N0.323 OF 2025 3* o \ 9 StP 2025 nr O urten! »•» xV- A. MACMA IS DISMISSED.