APHC010407842019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1239/2019 Between: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C, RTC HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVTI. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PONNA NATARAJ, S/O. P. SIVALINGA DEVAR, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. A.P.S.W.R. SCHOOL QUARTERS, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. PONNA ANKAMMA, W/O. P. NATARAJ, HINDU, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O. A.P.S.W.R. SCHOOL QUARTERS, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. PASUPULATI MANOHARA, S/O. P.N. RAMANA, HINDU, DRIVER, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-51, SOMAYAJULA PALLI, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN 2. The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT:- The present appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2012 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati by the appellant/APSRTC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the case on hand are as follows: 4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 16.04.2011 at about 4.30 p.m., the son of the petitioners and another person by name Jagadeesh Kumar were proceedings on motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AG 8033 from Avilala to Oil Mil near V.P.Agrapaharam, when they reached Chandra Wines, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 699 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the son of the petitioners was travelling as a pillion rider. As a result, the son of the petitioners was died on the spot and the other person was injured. A complaint was given to the Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station 4 about the accident and the same was registered in Crime No.65 of 2011 under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. As the son of the petitioners was died in the accident that occurred on 16.04.2011, they filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. The 2nd respondent/driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. The 1st respondent/appellant filed counter affidavit denying various averments made in the claim petition, inter-alia contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was further contended that the rider of the motorcycle himself was the reason for the accident inasmuch as he was riding the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive and it was denied that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. 7. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On the other hand, the 5 2nd respondent examined as R.W.1/the driver of the offending vehicle and no exhibits were marked. 8. Having considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal, by order dated 12.10.2018, partly allowed the claim petition by granting an amount of Rs.9,59,200/- along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. Perused the record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AG 8033, on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. Though R.W.1, the driver of the offending by bus was examined, except reiterating the averments made in the counter 6 affidavit of the 1st respondent/appellant, nothing is forth coming to show that he did not drive the bus in negligent manner. 12. On the other hand, in order to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioners have filed copies of FIR and charge sheet, which were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.4. On perusal of the said documents, it is clear that the investigating officer, after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet stating that the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the accident was occurred, in which the son of the petitioners died on the spot. From the above documents, it can be safely concluded that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in that regard cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, though the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- based on the salary certificate which was marked as Ex.A.6, the Tribunal did not believe the same inasmuch as the petitioners did not produce any record to show that the deceased 7 had the technical knowledge to undertake repair works to UPS systems and inverters. Though the proprietor of Power Tech Solutions was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A.6 salary certificate was marked, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believed inasmuch as, on one hand the claimants stated that the deceased son was prosecuting 2nd year I.T.I course and on the other it is contended that, he was under taking repair works. In view of the contradictory statements put forth by the petitioners, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the salary certificate and the evidence of P.W.2. 14. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and computed the compensation under various conventional heads by awarding an amount of Rs.9,59,200/-. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, this Court does not find any force in the said contention, inasmuch as the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased on notional basis as the deceased was admittedly ITI student at the time of death. Further, taking into 8 consideration of the future prospects of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 15. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the appellant is directed to pay the compensation together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt: 06.11.2025 SR