APHC010031952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 26/2023 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP.BY VC AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND REGIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DEPOT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUS COMPLEX VC AND MD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. JYOTHULA KUMARI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-34, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. JYOTHULA VENKATARAMANA, S/O NARAYUDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-34. KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. JYOTHULA RAMESH, S/O VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-34, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 4. GUVVADA RAJA RAO, S/O MALLESU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP-3QZ- 0098 OF SRIKAKULAM DEPOT R/O D.NO. 1-7, S.C.VEEDHI, THANDEMAVALASA SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- 1 Additional District And Sessions Court East Godavari At Rajamahendravaram passed in M.V.O.P No. 40 OF 2019 dated 06.09.2022 the above named Appellant begs IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum I Addl. District and Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum I Addl. District and Sessions Court East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 pleased to permit us to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the Appellant in compliance with the Orders, dt.30-01-2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in IA. No. 2 of 2023 in the above MACMA against the Judgment and Decree, dt.06- 09-2022 passed in MVOP.No.40 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, at Rajamahendravaram and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. V HEMANTH KUMAR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 26/2023 JUDGMENT: Present appeal arises against order dated 06.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District And Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, awarding compensation of Rs.11,68,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. This is a case of death. Claimants are mother, father and brother of the deceased. The deceased, stated to be aged twenty two years and having degree qualification, was working as a clerk in Swathi Yamaha Show Room, at Jaggampet and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. The deceased, while returning to home on his bicycle on left side road margin, was hit by RTC bus bearing No. AP30Z0098, driven by driver of the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which was proceeding from Rajahmendry, resulting in the deceased sustaining grievous injuries. 5 He was shifted to Government Hospital, Prathipadu, and thereafter to Government Hospital, Kakinada, for better treatment. However, he was declared dead by that time. 5. The accident was reported to Police and crime No.144 of 2018 for the offence under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘IPC’), came to be registered against driver of the bus. Basing on aforesaid facts, the claimants preferred claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The driver of the bus was arrayed as 1st respondent and the A.P. Road Transport Corporation as 2nd respondent. 6. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent contested the claim by filing written statement. In the written statement, the 2nd respondent denied the manner in which accident occurred, much less it was on account of rashness and negligence of driver of the bus. It also denied age of the deceased, his avocation, his earnings and thereby, the claim of compensation. 7. In respect of the claim set up by the claimants, mother of the deceased was examined as PW1, eye witness as PW2 and employer as PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. For respondent- 6 Corporation, driver of the bus was examined RW1, but no documents were marked. 8. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the death of Jyothula Rajesh is caused in motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.10.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing NO.AP30 A 0098 by the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. Considering the evidence of eye witness-PW2 and also Exs.A1 to A5 i.e., Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3-post- mortem report, Ex.A4-MVI report and Ex.A5-charge sheet, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent manner of driving of the 1st respondent-driver. Though the 1st respondent deposed that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased while riding bicycle, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to support the same, the Tribunal disbelieved the same and proceeded further to determine the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the age of deceased as 25 years, based on postmortem report, and assessed income of deceased as Rs.7000/- per month on notional basis, considering the minimum daily wages payable to a coolie 7 worker, though the claimants claimed Rs.10,000/- as monthly earnings of the deceased, which was not substantiated. 10. Considering the age of deceased as 25 years, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18 and after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and adding up 40% towards future prospects, assessed loss of dependency as Rs.10,58,400/-. It also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and further Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection, ultimately total compensation of Rs.11,68,400/-, came to be awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 11. Heard Sri Ch. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri V. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the Tribunal has erroneously considered and fixed Rs.7000/- as monthly income of the deceased, when the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was working as a clerk or in any other capacity. The income assessed by the Tribunal is on higher 8 side. Except for the aforesaid submission, no other grounds have been raised assailing the impugned order. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants tried to support the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased basing on the minimum daily wages fixed for a coolie worker as on the date of the accident. As the same is done based on proper guess work, in the absence of there being any contra evidence, it cannot be found fault with and does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded certain amounts towards conventional heads, which are required to be reconsidered in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1. 14. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 15. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal, in relation to determination of liability and compensation awarded, suffer from any perversity? 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 9 16. The present appeal challenges only the quantum of determination but not liability. In order to determine the compensation, leaving apart the liability aspect, the Tribunal is required to consider age, avocation of the deceased, monthly income and number of claimants. In order to assess the age of deceased, in the absence of any evidence adduced by claimants, the Tribunal has taken his age as 28 years, based on postmortem report. This Court does not find infirmity with such approach. Coming to the aspect of the income of deceased, the claimants have made claim of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence came to be produced. They examined PW3, who was stated to be the employer of the deceased. In the evidence of PW3, except for oral statement, no other documentary evidence was produced either to say that the deceased was in employment with PW3 or was drawing certain amount of salary. Therefore, the said evidence was not considered by the Tribunal. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the income of the deceased on notional basis. For the said purpose, it has considered the minimum daily wages payable to coolie workers, as on the date of the accident and has arrived the income of the deceased as Rs.7000/- per month. 10 17. The approach of the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is reasonable and even the income assessed also cannot be said to be on higher side. 18. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of income has been deducted to personal expenses and after adding up 40% towards future prospects, annual income came to be assessed. Therefore, the manner in which income of the deceased has been assessed to arrive at loss of dependency of Rs.10,58,400/- is strictly in conformity with the guidelines provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, and therefore does not warrant interference. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, the Tribunal though has assessed and awarded certain amounts towards conventional heads in terms of dictum laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, the said amounts are required to be revised: 19. On the point of conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra-1), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3,Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 3 (2018) 11 SCC 780 4 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 11 and Ors. 5., and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others6, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, i.e., ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively, as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case(5-Supra). 20. Therefore, the compensation that the claimants would be entitled under the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads, are revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs.7000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 40 years) Rs.33,600/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs.1,17,600/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/2nd ) Rs.58,800/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.58,800/- 5 Multiplier of 18 for the age of 28 years Rs.10,58,400/- (18 x Rs.58,800/-) Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 5 (2021) 11 SCC 780 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 12 7 Total Compensation Rs.12,39,900/- 21. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,39,900/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 22. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Further, the appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, after deducting the amounts, if any, already deposited, within eight (08) weeks. Failing which, respondents/claimants are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for recovering the same. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, in proportionate shares as provided under the impugned order. It is needless to observe that the claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee before withdrawing the compensation. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 20.08.2025 ANS 13 266 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 26/2023 Date: 20.08.2025 ANS