APHC010027732020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.NO: 58 of 2020 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Bus Station Complex. ...APPELLANT AND Jaddu Satyanarayana, S/o Ramaiah, aged 34 years, Occ: Employee and others ……… RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent(S): B VARAHALA RAO The Court made the following: VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 2 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.58 of 2020 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 19.06.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.172 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Jaddu Rattaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 14.11.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Jaddu Rattaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 14.11.2016. On the date of the incident, the said Rattaiah along with his family members went to Tirupathi and after having VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 3 darshan on 14.11.2016, they returned to Vijayawada bus station and boarded APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-16-Z-0063 to go to Dwaraka Tirumala for offering prayer to Lord China Venkanna. On the way, when the bus reached Asram Hospital, Eluru, at about 8.30 A.M., the driver of the bus attempted to overtake a lorry at high speed, on account of which, he dashed the lorry, as a result, the inmates of the bus including the deceased sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the incident, all the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru, where the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.305 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Section 304 A, 337 and 338 IPC by the Eluru Rural Police Station. Hence, the claim petition. 3. While the 1st respondent-driver remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent Corporation filed its written statement denying and disputing the manner of accident, the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The respondent-Corporation claimed that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent- VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 4 driver of the bus, but, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver as he started the stationed lorry all of a sudden without taking any precautions while the bus was overtaking it and that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether Jaddu Rattaiah, deceased in the case died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 16 Z 0063? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed, if so, against whom? 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1, the son of the deceased, was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. 6. The Tribunal, basing on the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 to A.4, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus on account of VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 5 his overtaking the lorry at a high speed rashly and negligently. Further, having considered the fact that there was no cogent evidence in proof of the exact age and income of the deceased except the self-serving testimony of PW.1, the Tribunal, fixed the age of the deceased as 56 years as per the recitals of Exs.A.2 and A.3 –Post Mortem Report and Inquest report, and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and by applying multiplier of “7” for the age of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.6,000 X 12 X 7 (–) 1/4 = 3,78,000/-) towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of companionship to the 3rd petitioner- wife of the deceased and also awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Assailing the said award of compensation, the present appeal came to be filed. VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 6 7. Heard Sri N. Srihari, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri B. Varahala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to take into account the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further, the Tribunal grossly erred in fixing the age of the deceased as 56 years instead of 60 years, in the absence of substantive proof of age. The Tribunal also erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of specific proof of income of the deceased and that the award of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of companionship is highly excessive and exorbitant. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned standing counsel, as seen from the award under appeal, this court found that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus while overtaking the lorry, on account of which the deceased died, became final and needs no interference in the absence of substantial evidence on VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 7 the part of the appellant Corporation, though they pleaded about the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in the absence of substantive evidence in proof of age of the deceased, the Tribunal relying upon the documentary evidence of Ex.A.2- Inquest report and Ex.A.3-Post Mortem certificate, for the purpose of determining the age of the deceased, fixed the age of the deceased as 56 years. Further, the Tribunal, considering the avocation of the deceased as farmer and agricultural coolie, fixed his income as Rs.6,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of “7”, and after deducting 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded Rs.3,78,000/- towards loss of dependency, which, in the opinion of this court, is just and reasonable. Further, the award of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of companionship to the 3rd respondent-wife and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses under conventional heads are also just and reasonable. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the reasons assigned for award of such amounts are just and reasonable and are well founded. Hence, VS, J MACMA.No.58 of 2020 8 the contentions of the learned standing counsel for the appellant are unsustainable and do not have any merit. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 19.06.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.172 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 04.04.2025 Ksn