APHC010443762022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL Between: 1. APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, VIZIANAGARAM DEPOT, VIZIANAGARAM. 2. APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA. 1. SIVAKOTI KIRAN KUMAR APPARAO, SIN LATE RAMARAO, HINDU, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AL D.NO.24 24, SANTHI NAGAR, KANITHI ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SIVAKOTI JYOTHI, W/O KIRAN KLUMAR @ APPARAO, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.24 KANITHI ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. KILAPARTHI DEMUDU, S/O TATA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, R/O LAKKIDAM VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. (R3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 331/2022 APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, VIZIANAGARAM DEPOT, VIZIANAGARAM. APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT(S) AND SIVAKOTI KIRAN KUMAR APPARAO, SIN LATE RAMARAO, HINDU, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AL D.NO.24 24, SANTHI NAGAR, KANITHI ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. SIVAKOTI JYOTHI, W/O KIRAN KLUMAR @ APPARAO, EARS, R/AT D.NO.24-79-24, SANTHI NAGAR, KANITHI ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. KILAPARTHI DEMUDU, S/O TATA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, R/O LAKKIDAM VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. (R3 [3506] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, RTC ...APPELLANT(S) SIVAKOTI KIRAN KUMAR APPARAO, SIN LATE RAMARAO, HINDU, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AL D.NO.24-79- 24, SANTHI NAGAR, KANITHI ROAD, GAJUWAKA, SIVAKOTI JYOTHI, W/O KIRAN KLUMAR @ APPARAO, 24, SANTHI NAGAR, KILAPARTHI DEMUDU, S/O TATA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, R/O LAKKIDAM VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. (R3 2 IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY, SINCE HE IS DRIVER) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BUDDARAJU RAMA GOPALA RAJU The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.331 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present Appeal is filed by APSRTC under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “Act”), assailing the order dated 20.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1158 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) This is a case of death. The claimants are parents of the deceased. The claim was preferred under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with costs and interest. (b) The deceased, who was a first-year B.Tech student and 19 years old as on the date of the accident, i.e., 08.11.2014, while boarding a bus belonging to the respondent corporation, due to the negligence of the driver, fell down and sustained grievous 4 injuries as the bus ran over on his left leg and right hand. He was immediately shifted to ABC Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he succumbed to death. The said incident reported to the police and Crime No.201 of 2014 was came to be registered at Anandapuram Police Station for the offence under Section 338 of IPC against the bus driver, who was later charge-sheeted after altering the offence to Section 304-A of IPC. (c) As the deceased was pursuing first year B.Tech in Civil Engineering and had bright future prospects, claim was made seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/- per month. (d) The 1st respondent-driver of bus remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and respondent Nos.2 & 3-corporation filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred and that the driver of the bus was responsible and negligent in causing the accident. Even they have also denied the age, earnings on account of future prospects and also compensation claimed to be on higher side. (e) Based on the pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 5 1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6942 and whether it resulted the death of the deceased Sivakoti Uday Kumar, S/o Kiran Kumar @ Apparao? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so, from whom out of respondents and to what extent? 3) To what relief? (f) In order to substantiate the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1, an eye-witness, who was traveling in the same offending vehicle was examined as PW.2, and the Principal of the college in which the deceased was studying was examined as PW.3, and Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked. (g) The Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, resulting in death of the deceased. However, while determining compensation, the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.5,000/- per month on notional basis and accordingly, compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- was awarded along 6 with interest at 7.5% per annum. Assailing the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 4. Heard Sri Ch. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri B. Ram Gopal Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, translating into Rs.60,000/- per annum, without any iota of evidence and the order passed adopting such notional income is unjust. He further contended that as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted half of the income towards personal expenses, however, only a deduction of one-third was made, which is clearly contrary to the settled legal law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order for retaining the compensation as determined by the Tribunal. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 9. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 7 order passed by the Tribunal, in relation to the compensation determined is just and fair, or requires any further enhancement. 9. The deceased is stated to have been pursuing first-year B.Tech Engineering as on the date of the accident. In support of this claim, Ex.A7 (SCC Certificate), Ex.A8 (Intermediate Marks List), Ex.A9 (EAMCET Engineering Rank Card), Ex.A10 (Provisional Certificate), Ex.A11 (Tuition Fee Receipts), and Ex.A12 (Study Certificate) of the deceased have been marked. 10. The aforesaid evidence, coupled with the oral evidence of the mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW.1 and the Principal of the college examined as R.W.1, clearly supports the claim that the deceased was studying the first-year Engineering course. Based on these claims, it has been sought that the income of the deceased be determined as Rs.25,000/- per month. 11. The Tribunal, dealing with the aforesaid issue, considered the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma 1 and Arvind Kumar Mishra v. National India Assurance Limited2, 1 (2015) 2 SCC 180 2 (2010) 18 SCC 254 8 and collectively determined the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs.60,000/- per annum. 12. Considering that the date of the accident was in the year 2014, the income determined by the Tribunal is definitely not on the higher side. 13. Though the claimants contended that there is no basis for arriving such income on notional basis as Rs.5,000/- per month, this Court agrees with the Tribunal’s finding, for the reason that the Tribunal had specifically addressed the issue in para No.20 of the impugned judgment and tried to balance the claims of both the claimants as well as the Corporation, by drawing the support from the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above. 14. Since the Tribunal applied its mind in the process of determining the appropriate income of the deceased to assess future prospects, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no basis or reasoning in coming to the conclusion. Regarding the deduction applied by the Tribunal, since the deceased was a bachelor, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma(Supra), a deduction of 50% ought to have been made. 9 Therefore, the compensation determined by the Tribunal needs to be revised accordingly. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order of the Tribunal stands modified to the following extent: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs.5,000/- Yearly Income Rs.60,000/- Future prospects (Age being 19 years) Rs.24,000/- (40% of the income) National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/2) 84,000-42,000 =42,000/- Multiplier (18) 42,000 X 18 =Rs.7,56,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased Rs.7,56,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- (with 10% 10 increase every 3 years from 2017) Para 59.8 Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 2 (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) =Rs. 96,800/- United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC Online Sc 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Khushwaha& Ors. 2025 SCC Online SC 554 Para 17 Total Rs.8,89,100/- 11 16. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,89,100/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 17. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. stands partly allowed directing the appellant to deposit the modified compensation amount @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization, after deducting the amounts, if any, already deposited, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for recovering the same. On such deposit being made, respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, in proportionate shares, as provided under the impugned order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 07.10.2025 DSV 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 331/2022 Date: 07.10.2025 DSV