APHC010116002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.173 OF 2022 AND X-OBJECTIONS No.23 of 2022 Between: 1. THE A.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (NOW AT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT), (BUS BELONGS MARKAPURAM DEPOT) (OWNER OF BUS NO. AP29 Z 2099). 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RTC BUS-STAND COMPLEX, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. ARIKATLA GURUSWAMI REDDY, , AGED 64 YEARS, S/O VENKATASWAMI REDDY, RESIDENT OF CHENNAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, TARLUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. ARIKATLA VENGAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O GURUSWAMI REDDY, RESIDENT OF CHENNAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, TARLUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. MANIKALA BALAJI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVULU, DRIVER IN MAKAPUR DEPOT, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 29 Z 2099). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 01-03-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 327 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 01-03-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 327 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VW Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.173 OF 2022 AND X-OBJECTIONS No.23 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: MACMA No.173 of 2022 is preferred by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (herein after, ‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of M.V. Act, arises out of order dated 01.03.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.327 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, challenging the award of compensation. Even the respondents/ claimants have also preferred Cross Objections for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) Parents of deceased instituted present claim under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of ₹25,00,000/- on account of death of their son. The deceased, while attending to his office duties, was proceeding on motorcycle and the same was hit by bus belonging to respondent Corporation coming in opposite 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch direction, thereby he sustained severe injuries and succumbed on spot. The said accident occurred on 24.05.2017. The incident came to be reported to police, who registered Crime No.97 of 2017 for offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the bus and later, came to be charge sheeted. (b) The deceased was stated to be aged 27 years and working as Technician at Surya Durga Powers (Cell Tower) and drawing monthly salary of ₹14,500/-. Accordingly, the present claim came to be instituted. The driver of bus remained ex parte and the claim was contested by only Corporation. It had filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident had occurred and that the driver was negligent and responsible for causing the accident. It also denied the avocation, age and earnings of deceased, and compensation claimed was contested to be on higher side. (c) Upon considering the pleadings on record, tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the death of the deceased Arikatla Ramanjaneyulu Reddy occurred at 11.30 a.m., on 24.05.2017 at Srirangapuram Village on Kanigiri – Cumbum road due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent – driver of APSRTC bus bearing 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch No.AP 29Z 2099 and whether there is any negligence on the part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased? 3. If so, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation against whom and to what extent? 4. To what relief? (d) In order to prove the case of claimants, 1st claimant has been examined as P.W.1, besides examining eyewitness who was passenger in the bus as P.W.2 and also the Safety Manager, who was working along with deceased at Surya Durga Powers (Cell Tower) as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. None were examined for respondents nor were any documents marked. (e) The tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. Eventually, proceeded to determine the compensation considering the income of deceased as ₹14,500/-. As deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income came to be deducted and accordingly, the loss of dependency came to be determined. It has also awarded ₹15,000/- towards 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total an amount of ₹21,00,600/- came to be awarded. (f) Assailing the same, Corporation has preferred present appeal. So also, the respondents/claimants preferred cross objections dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and claimed enhancement thereon. 4. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for claimants and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent Corporation. 5. Learned standing counsel for appellant Corporation mainly contended that the deceased was equally negligent in driving motorcycle, inasmuch, the accident occurred in the middle of the road, therefore, the same itself demonstrates that there was contributory negligence and hence, tribunal was not justified in mulcting with liability on the Corporation. He further contended that the deceased did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident. He further contended that the amount of compensation determined, in particular, the income of deceased was not based on any cogent material, therefore, the tribunal has committed grievous error in arriving at the loss of dependency. 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/claimants supported the impugned order by contending that the tribunal has upon proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, has rightly come to conclusion that it is a case of clear negligence at the instance of driver of offending bus and in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the Corporation, the findings of fact recorded by tribunal cannot be interfered with. He further contended that the tribunal has awarded compensation without considering the grant of Filial Consortium to the dependant parents. By placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others1, he submits that claimants were entitled to Parental Consortium/Filial Consortium and the quantum of amount has to be awarded in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 8. The deceased was unmarried and met with an accident on 24.05.2017 while he was proceeding on motorcycle to attend to his 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch regular office duties. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was hit by the bus belonging to respondent Corporation, which came in opposite direction. In order to prove the occurrence of accident and that the driver of bus was negligent in causing the accident, eyewitness who was travelling in bus came to be examined as P.W.2, besides marking Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A2 – Inquest Report, Ex.A3 – Postmortem Report, Ex.A4 – MVI Report and Ex.A5 - Charge Sheet. 9. On the other hand, the Corporation, though has taken stand that the accident occurred while deceased was driving motorcycle on middle of the road, no piece of evidence has been placed on record in support thereof. Since the passenger of the offending bus himself has spoken to the fact that the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle on left side of the road and the bus dashed him in opposite direction, the tribunal has come to conclusion that the said evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the occurrence of accident and also negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus. In the absence of any other contra evidence to support the case of Corporation, the evidence produced by claimants is sufficient to draw aforesaid conclusion. 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch 10. As regards reliability of FIR and charge sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limits and others3 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Crux and another4, which held that key of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another5. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General 3 (2018) 5 SCC 656 4 (2013) 10 SCC 646 5 (2023) 13 SCC 510 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahoo and others6, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with well-founded findings and conclusions drawn by tribunal insofar as liability is concerned. 11. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation determined, the tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the evidence that was let in by claimants, in particular Ex.A6, which is payslip for the month of April, 2017 issued by the employer and also oral evidence of P.W.3, who was working in the same establishment to speak about both the employment and salary drawn. Since the said evidence is sufficient to come to conclusion that the deceased was working as technician besides earning a salary of ₹14,500/-, there is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. The tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased considering aforesaid evidence as ₹14,500/-. Since there is no contest with respect to other aspects of the components which were considered by tribunal for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency, same are not gone into. However, the tribunal appears not to have granted parental consortium. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the claimants, the tribunal 6 (2025) 2 SCC 599 9 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch ought to have granted Filial Consortium to parents in line with the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma and Pranay Sethi. 12. In view of the above, the compensation payable to the claimants stands revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs.14,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,74,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 27 years) Rs.69,600/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs.2,43,600/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 50% of the income) Rs.1,21,800/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.1,21,800/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 27 years 17 x Rs.1,21,800/- = Rs.20,70,600/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.22,03,700/- 13. Total Compensation Rs.22,03,700/- 13. Accordingly, MACMA No.173 of 2022 filed by Corporation stands dismissed and Cross Objections No.23 of 2022 filed by the 10 CGR, J MACMA. No.173 of 2022 & batch claimants stands allowed by enhancing the compensation to ₹22,03,700/- payable along with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 08.10.2025 SS