APHC010422002004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the Two The Honourable Civil Miscellaneous Between: 1. Vinnakota Ravayamma, R/o. Door No.1-181, District. 2. Vinnakota Veera Venkataramana, r/o.Katheru, Rajahmundry 3. Vinnakota Ramadasu, R/o.Katheru, Rajahmundry 4. Chintaluri Suryakumari, R/o.Gorripudi, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari Dist 5. Thummidi Padmavathi, Housewife R/o. Thogummi District. 1. Pentapati Kondayya, vari Street, Seethanagaram 2. Chenna Venkataratnam, 2097, R/o.T.Nagar IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the Twenty Seventh day of November wo Thousand and Twenty Five present onourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi iscellaneous Appeal No.2918 of 2004 avayamma, W/o.Late Narasimha Murthy, H 181, Kateru, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari Venkataramana, S/o.Late Narasimha M ajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. amadasu, S/o.Late Narasimha Murthy, ajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. Chintaluri Suryakumari, W/o Veera Raghavulu, H Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. admavathi, W/o.Venkata Rama Satyanarayana hogummi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari ...A and ondayya, S/o.Subbayya, driver, R/o.Inugantivaripet eethanagaram Mandal. enkataratnam, S/o.Ramana, owner of city bus bearing agar D.No.6-20-1, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] , Housewife , East Godavari Murthy Nil employee Veera Raghavulu, Housewife rict. atyanarayana , West Godavari ...Appellants nugantivaripet Satyam ity bus bearing No.ADH , East Godavari District. 2 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manger / Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4. India Assurance company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manger, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...Respondent(s): Counsel for the appellants: 1. Harinath Reddy Soma Counsel for the respondents: 1.Nil 2.Nil 3.Smt.Pushpinder Kaur 4.Nil 3 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 04.03.2004 in O.P.No.525 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge (M.A.C.T)- cum-East Godavari District, Rajamandry. 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows : The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioners Nos.2 to 5 are the children of late Vinnakota Narasimha Murthy (hereafter called as ‘the deceased’). The deceased was hale and healthy. He was 53 years old and working as watchman in the District Head Quarters Hospital, Rajahmandry drawing salary of Rs.4,300/-, but due to the premature death, the petitioners lost their support. As the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 while driving the bus bearing No.AP 16 U 4552, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondents Nos.1 to 3 with joint and several liability. 4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. 5. The respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the narration of the accident and further stating that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. It is further mainly stated that the claim petition was filed by implicating the vehicle bearing No.AP16 U 4552 by the claimants in collusion with the respondents Nos.1 and 2, though the police registered F.I.R., and on the basis of it, filed a charge sheet stating 4 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 that the accident was caused due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.ADH 2097. 6. The respondent No.4 filed a counter stating that the S.H.O., Traffic Police Station, Rajahmandry filed a charge sheet against the driver under sections 304-A and 201 I.P.C. stating that the accident was caused due to the city bus bearing No.ADH 2097 and that it was not insured by the respondent No.4. Therefore, this respondent prayed to dismiss the petition against the respondent No.4. 7. The following issues are settled for trial: 1.Whether the deceased in this case died on account of rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle by the 1st respondent? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3.To what relief ? The additional issue is settled: 1.Whether the 1st respondent caused the accident on 20.06.1998 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.ADH 2097 but not AP16 U 4552 as pleaded by the 3rd respondent? 8. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Ex.A1/ 20.06.1998: / Copy of F.I.R in Crime No.57 of 1998 of S.H.O., Traffic P.S., Rajamandry. Ex.A2 / 20.06.1998: / Copy of post mortem certificate. 5 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 Ex.A3 / 20.06.1998: / Copy of inquest report. Ex.A4 / 27.06.1998: / Salary certificate of V.Narasimha Murthy. Ex.A5 / 27.10.1998: / Office copy of registered legal notice issued by petitioner’s advocate to the respondents. Ex.A6 / 20.11.1998: / Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A7 / 20.09.2001 : Certified copy of calendar & judgment in C.C. No.332 of 1998 of III A.J.F.C.M., Rajahmandry. Ex.A8 / ---- : Reply notice got issued by respondents. Ex.A9 / 24.04.1998 : Copy of temporary permit issued for the period 24.04.1998 to 23.08.1998. Ex.B1 / 20.06.1998 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.332 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmandry. Ex.B2/ 29.06.1998 : Certified copy of M.V.Inspector’s report. Ex.B3: 05.08.2003 : True copy of permit to the Bus No.AP 16 U 4552. Ex.B4: 08.11.1999: Copy of notice got issued by New India Assurance company. Ex.B5: 10.11.1999 : postal receipt. Ex.B6: / 30.12.2003 : Notice given under Oder 12 Rule 8 by rule No.4. 9. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.4,24,567/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization apportioning the liability 6 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 equally between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for half of the amount of compensation and the respondent No.3 for the remaining half of the amount of compensation. The petition against the respondent No.4 was dismissed without costs. 10. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants preferred this appeal vide C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 to enhance the amount of compensation by Rs.25,424/- with costs and to make the respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay amount of compensation to the claimant instead of apportioning the liability equally between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the respondents No.3 on the other hand as directed by the Tribunal. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 also preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.2963 of 2005 challenging the liability fastened against them to the extent of 50% of the amount of compensation awarded. The appeal was dismissed for default by this Court on 06.11.2025. The respondent No.3 preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.1767 of 2004 challenging the liability fastened against it. It was dismissed on merits on 13.09.2012 by this High Court before bifurcation of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in dividing the liability between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and the respondent No.3 on the other hand, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident is AP16 U 4552 and the bus bearing No.ADH 2097. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting amount of compensation lower by Rs.25,424/-. 12. Though the notices were served on the respondents Nos.1 and 2, they have not contested this appeal. As is already noted, the appeal filed by them was also dismissed for default. Similarly, though the notice was served on respondent No.4, no appearance has been made. In fact, no 7 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 liability was fastened against respondent No.4, nor was any claim made by the appellants against the respondent No.4 in this appeal. Therefore, the respondent No.4 is only a formal party. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner / respondent No.3 submitted that in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by this respondent challenging the liability of 50% fastened on it, no argument would be advanced on the grounds raised in that appeal, however, she would resist the contention of the appellants to fasten the remaining 50% of the liability dismissed against this respondent, by substantiating the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. 14. The Tribunal held the view that, since respondent No.2, being the owner of two buses viz., ADH 2097 and AP16U 4552, failed to furnish information though he had burden under the statutory provisions, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay half of the amount of compensation, along with respondent No.3 / insurance company. 15. An elaborate discussion was made by the Tribunal to examine whether the bus bearing No.ADH 2029 or AP16U 4552 was involved in the accident. As this aspect has already been finalized in the appeals filed by the respondents, this Court does not go into that question in this appeal, and it would be beyond the scope of this appeal. Further, this Court does not see any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal dividing the liability between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the respondent No.3 on the other hand. 16. The Tribunal awarded an amount of compensation by calculating the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.4,427/- as per Ex.A4 and taking the age of the deceased as 53 years and applying multiplier 11 after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. That part, 8 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal to enhance the amount of compensation by Rs.25,424/- and the appeal is dismissed. 17. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 27.11.2025 GRL 9 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 192 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004 Date: 27.11.2025 GRL 10 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2918 of 2004