APHC010298132019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 995/2019 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER VL PURAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. MANDAPATI RAGHAVA, W/O LATE GANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 1-61/1, AMUJURU VILLAGE K.GANGAVARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. M SATYAVENI, W/O DURGA RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 1-61/1, AMUJURU VILLAGE K.GANGAVARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. KOPPISETTI RAMAKRISHNA ALIAS K R KRISHNA, S/O LAKSHMANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS KOPPIGUNTA VILLAGE, KATRENIKONA MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP-29Z-430 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-11 Additional District Judge, at Amalapuram passed in M.V.O.P No. 171 OF 2015 dated 18.05..2019 and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional District Judge at Amalapuram passed in M.V.O.P.No.171 of 2015 dated 18-05-2019 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A.No./2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following order: The present appeal is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. aggrieved by order dated 18.05.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.171 of 2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II Additional District Judge, at Amalapuram (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made there under, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on account of the death of the deceased by name Mandapati Ganga Raju. 3. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.10.2014, the deceased was proceeding on Tractor cum Trailer bearing Registration No.AP 05 X 3117 and AP 05 TT 6180 with the load of grass from Mukkamala towards Amujuru Village of K.Gangavaram Mandal, when the Tractor reached Kandriga main road, Kothapeta Mandal, the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.AP 29 Z 430 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed tried to overtake the Tractor and in the said process, dashed the Tractor. As a result of which, the deceased fell on the road, thereby the Tractor cum Trailer ran over the head of the victim and he died on the spot. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent 4 driving of the 1st respondent-Driver. A case in Crime No.191 of 2014 under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. was registered against the 1st respondent. The Police conducted the inquest over the dead body and later the body was sent to post mortem examination. It is further case of the petitioners that the sole bread winner of the family died in the accident. On account of his death, the present application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The claim was resisted by the 2nd respondent by filing counter affidavit and the same was adopted by respondent No.1. It is the case of the respondents that at about 2 pm, the offending bus started from Amalapuram to Rajamahendravaram, when it reached Kandriga, the Tractor of the deceased was going ahead of the bus. It is further case of the 2nd respondent that the deceased lost control over the Tractor and dashed TVS XL moped which was parked on the left side road and due to which, the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle. It is further case of the 2nd respondent, having noticed the same, the respondent No.1 stopped the bus to help the victim on humanitarian grounds. It is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that the APSRTC bus did not involve in the accident as alleged by the petitioners. It is further case of the 2nd respondent that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. With the above pleadings, the respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners they have examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Ex.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the respondents have examined RW-1 and no documents were marked. 5 6. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondents. Perused the record. 8. It is the specific case of the appellant that the bus was not at all involved in the accident as alleged by the petitioners. In order to prove its case, the appellant got examined its driver as RW-1. On perusal of the said evidence, it is clear that except reiterating what has been stated in the counter affidavit, nothing is placed on record to show that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined as PWs1 and 2. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased who deposed in similar lines of the averments made in support of the claim petition. Coming to the evidence of PW-2, who was eye witness to the accident, has categorically deposed that the he was sitting on his cart by the side of the main road, then the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Tractor. As a result of which, the Tractor turned turtle and the driver of the Tractor (deceased) fell under it and died on the spot. Though PW-2 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Apart from the same, on close perusal of evidence of RW-1, the Driver of the offending vehicle, it is succinctly clear that he voluntarily surrendered before the Police after the accident. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and the admission made 6 by RW-1 in his cross examination, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent- Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. Therefore, the contention of the appellant, in this regard, is liable to be rejected. 9. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month and he was also getting Rs.150/- as batta per day. However, the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence in support of their claim. As can be seen from the record, it is clear that the deceased was Driver by avocation and having considering the material placed before the Tribunal, including oral evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Further by applying multiplier 14 and after deductions, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.13,80,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Despite the same, the Tribunal granted only Rs.10,00,000/- inasmuch as the petitioners have claimed Rs.10,00,000/-. As already noted supra the respondents have not adduced any evidence to disprove the evidence of PWs1 and 2. In the absence of any material on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as taking the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, though the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.13,80,000/-, but the same was restricted to Rs.10,00,000/- on the basis of the claim made by the petitioners. The said approach of the Tribunal is not sustainable under law inasmuch as while awarding the 7 compensation, especially under beneficial legislation, the Court is duty bound to grant ‘just compensation’. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited1 at Para No.5 of the Judgment held as under: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we fell that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation”. 11. Taking into consideration of the totality of the facts of the case, the claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.13,80,000/- towards compensation as per the order of the tribunal. Though the claimants have not approached this Court by filing appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment, they are entitled to receive just compensation as aforesaid. 12. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, but, the order dated 18.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.171 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, is hereby modified with respect to the amount of compensation as stated above. The appellant is directed to deposit 1 3 (2019) 2 SCC 192 : (2019) 1 SCC (Crl) 510 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 548 8 an amount of Rs.13,86,000/-, along with interest, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date.18.12.2025 M K K 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.995 of 2019 Date: 18.12.2025. U M K K 83