/ APHC010037002020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ' \\ 'S I / i;f / FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE f &\ ' I N /-/ v\ '.■5 v,y 7 4 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2020 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Holding Office at RTC Cross Roads, Vijayawada, Amravathi. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.1 AND 1. S Lalitha, W/o. Ganghadar Age 35 years, Hindu, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. S Hemanth Minor, S/o. Ganghadar Age 15 years, Hindu K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. R/o. K.Gollapalli 1 R/o. j 3. S Pallavi Minor, D/o. Ganghadar Age 13 years, Hindu, K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village R/o. Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. (Respondents No.2 and 3 are being minors, rep.by their mother as natural guardian, who is the 1st respondent herein.) j 4. S Nelavathamma, W/o. S. Chengalrayuctu, Aged 53 Residing at K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. years, Hindu, / / 5. S Chengairayudu, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged 63 years, Hindu, R/o. K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 6. S Deenu Saheb, S/o. S.A.Kareem Saheb, Age 45 years, Employee in APSRTC as driver. Residing at D.No. 5-66/1, Down Street, KallurTown, Pulicharla Mandal, Chittoor District. No.2 (R-6 is not Necessary party In MAGMA) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT N0.2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2017on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao(Standing Counsel for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and Sri CH Venkat Raman, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the order and decree dated 11.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati be and hereby is confirmed and •* % 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEOTQN^J^FICER To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District 2. Two CD Copies TAC r HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 100 OF 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA - « APHC010037002020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI /o' \ il ■\ 'l - FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA jyLOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2020 i vJ I v\ ' ) V Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act and Decree dated 11.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2017on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. aggrieved by the Judgment Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Holding Office at RTC Cross Roads, Vijayawada, Amravathi. by ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT N0.1 AND 1. S Lalitha, W/o. Ganghadar Age 35 years, Hindu R/o. K.Gollapalli Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. S Hemanth Minor, S/o. Ganghadar Age 15 years, Hindu K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. S Pallavi Minor, D/o. Ganghadar R/o. Age 13 years, Hindu Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. R/o. K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village f (Respondents No.2 and 3 are being minors, rep.by their mother as natural guardian, who is the 1st respondent herein.) 4. S Nelavathamma, W/o. S. Chengalrayuctu, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Residing at K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. S Chengalrayudu, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged 63 years, Hindu, R/o. K.Gollapalli, Valligatia Village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 6. S Deenu Saheb, S/o. S.A.Kareem Saheb, Age 45 years. Employee in APSRTC as driver. Residing at D.No. 5-66/1, Down Street, KallurTown, Pulicharla Mandal, Chittoor District. No.2 (R-6 is not Necessary party in MAGMA) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT N0.2 lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 stay all further proceedings Including the execution proceedings in M.V.O P.No. 100 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum - V Additional District judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO(STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : SRI CH VENKAT RAMAN The Court made the following JUDGMENT : /' / APHC010037002020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100/2020 [3333] MM Between; 1.THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING OFFICE AT RTC CROSS ROADS, VIJAYAWADA, AMRAVATHI. ...APPELLANT AND 1.S LALITHA, W/0. GANGHADAR AGE 35 YEARS, HINDU, 'R/0. K.GOLLAPALLI, VALLIGATLA VILLAGE, SOMALA MANUAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2.S HEMANTH MINOR, , S/0. GANGHADAR AGE 15 YEARS, HINDU, R/0. K.GOLLAPALLI, VALLIGATLA VILLAGE, SOMALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3.S PALLAVI MINOR, D/0. GANGHADAR AGE 13 YEARS, HINDU, R/0. K.GOLLAPALLI, VALLIGATLA VILLAGE, SOMALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS N0.2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS, REP.BY THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, WHO IS THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. 4.S NELAVATHAMMA, , W/0. S. CHENGALRAYUCTU, AGED 53 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT K.GOLLAPALLI, VALLIGATLA VILLAGE, SOMALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5.S CHENGALRAYUDU, S/0. NARASAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, HINDU, R/0. K.GOLLAPALLI, VALLIGATLA VILLAGE, SOMALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 VS, J 6-S DEENU SAHEB s/0 ^^^^^■^o,00of2020 employee in APSRTn^'^'^^^^'^ SAHEB APP /ic 66/1, DOWN STRfpt 5 RESIDINr L chittoor oSl- town PUL c^r. ° 5- l» «C«, 2 K-e ,S »OT »ES«y“S ■■■RESPondenT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARAVALA RAMA Counsel for the RAO(SC FOR APSRTC Respondent(S); Raman KKAC) ech venkat Ehe Court made the following order; f 3 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 JUDGMENT; The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 11.07.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.16,09,920/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- on the death of the deceased S. Gangadhar in a motor accident that occurred on 11.01.2025. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein arrayed before the Tribunal. as 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on the death of one S. Gangadhar (herein after referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred 11.01.2015. On 11.11.2015 the deceased went to Kalluru from his on native village Gantavaripalli on his personal work and after completion of his work, while returning to his village on his motor cycle bearing No.APOS AF 1416 about 3.30 p.m., when he reached near Pulicherla - Kalluru road near Penubala Flarijnawada, the 2'^'^ respondent being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3909 came in opposite direction of the deceased the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the bus and at H drove 4 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased as a result, the deceased of the said bus ran over the severe fatal injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.64 of 2015 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under contended that the deceased accident and quite hale and healthy. The deceased Manpower Consultancy Limited, Bangalore month. fell down on the road and front side right wheel deceased. The deceased sustained Section 304-A IPC. It is further was aged about 36 years at the time of was working in Lotus and earning Rs.23,345/- per 4. The 1 respondent Corporation filed its allegations made in the petition and contended was proceeding between Rompicherla and Kallur and when he reached near Penubala Harijanawada road and on seeing the lorry by following the traffic rules, the deceased a zig zag manner, lost control over his two wheeler and fell the extreme left of the road and died. There the 2"^ respondent and accident occurred driving of the deceased himself. counter denying the that while the 2'^'^ respondent at about 3.00 p.m., one lorry was parked on the same, while the 2"'' respondent was overtaking the came in opposite direction in on the ground on was no negligence on the part of cniy due to rash and negligent V, tl 5 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 5. The 2^" respondent also filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that this respondent was driving the bus at normal speed and at conscious manner, but the deceased who was not well acquainted with the driving of motor cycle and without having driving license drove the motor cycle and dashed the bus and contributed his negligence to the accident. The criminal case registered against him was ended in acquittal. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the accident on 09.08.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent and whether Gangadhar died as a result of accident? Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Gangadhar? Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, and if so, what extent and from whom? To what relief? 2) 3) 4) 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 examined and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 2"'' respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. were 6 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition with proportionate costs against the 1 and claim respondent, awarding compensation of Rs. 16,09,920/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount into the court within a month from the date of the order. On such deposit, the petitioner being the wife of deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,09,920/- along with total costs and total interest on Rs.16,09,920/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share of amount along with total interest. The petitioners 2 and 3 being the minor children of deceased are entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- each, and the total of petitioners 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank, till they attain majority and after they attaining majority, they are permitted to withdraw their respective share of amount along with accrued interest amount thereon. The petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- and he entire compensation amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years and after maturity period, she is permitted to withdraw her share of amount along with accrued interest thereon. The 5*^ petitioner being the father of the entitled to Rs.1,50,0007-^nd he is permitted to withdraw the same. deceased is > 7 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT: Though it is the contention of the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and there was negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident, a perusal of the impugned award shows that a case has been registered against the driver of the bus and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against him. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident, Ex.A2 copy of Charge Sheet filed by the police, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the said finding. It is also the contention of the appellant that the case registered against the driver of the 8 VS, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 offending vehicle ended in acquittal. To prove the same, the driver of the offending vehicle himself is examined as RW2 and exhibited Ex.Bt certified copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.1/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala, But, claim petition filed under Section 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act way concerned in deciding the guilt of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has offending vehicle is responsible for the said accident. the Tribunal have held that this iIS a and the Tribunal is no accused. Considering the rightly held that the driver of the 12. So far as the quantum of compensation iIS concerned, the petitioners cum - Driver in and also doing agriculture and pleaded that the deceased is working as Security Guard - Frontline Construction Company, Kadapa earning Rs.20,000/- per month and iin support of their contention, they also Consultancy Limited, examined PW3 Manager of the Lotus Manpower Bangalore and got marked Ex.A7 Pay slip. However, the Tribunal, after deducting the special allowance and conveyance and considering the basic pay plus DA, took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,280/- which comes to Rs.99,360/- (8,250 x 12) per annum. As per Ex.A3 Post Mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased is 36 years and the same is taken into consideration. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in / vs, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others', where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, 40% of the income should be added, which amounts to Rs.,1,39,104/- (Rs.99,360 + Rs.39,744/- (40% of Rs.99,360)) .As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal should be 1/4*^ of the income of the deceased. In the instant case. expenses there are five dependant family members. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4^'' of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses . and arrived at Rs.1,04,328/- per annum (Rs.1,39,104/- - Rs.34,776/-) towards his contribution to the family. By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘15’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 36 years, as recorded in Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.15,64,920/- (Rs.1,04,328 X 15) towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s (2 supra). Further, the Tribunal opined that the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1®‘ petitioner. In total, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.16,09,920/- towards compensation. Thus, ^ (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050) 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 vs, J MACMA.No.100 of 2020 the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 11.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Tirupati, Chittoor District (with 2. One CC to Sri. Aravala Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. CH Venkat Raman 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies -Cum - V Additional District Judge, records if any) Rama Rao(Standing Counsel for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED; 18/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE WIACMA NO. 100 OF 2020 dismissing the MACMA