APHC010228782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 191/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. MEDASANI CHITTEMMA, W/O. LATE SESHARAO, AGED 69 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.2-4, MATTA VARI STREET, PEDAKOTTURU, VELANGI, KARAPA (M). 2. NUNNA CHAKRAVENI, W/O. LATE CHAKRAM, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.2.181, NEELAYYA THOTA, KARAPA, KARAPA (M), 3. MEDASANI VENKATA RAMA SURIBABU, S/O. LATE SESHARAO, AGED 48 YEARS, PRIVATE WORKER, R/O. D.NO.2-4, MAIN ROAD, PEDAKOTTURU, VELANGI, KARAPA (M). 4. MEDASANI RAJABABU, S/O. LATE SESHARAO, AGED 42 YEARS, PRIVATE WORKER, R/O. D.NO.2-14, MAIN ROAD, PEDAKOTTURU, VELANGI, KARAPA (M). 5. MEDASANI UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE SESHARAO, AGED 40 YEARS, PRIVATE WORKER, R/O. D.NO.2-14, MAIN ROAD, PEDAKOTTURU, VELANGI, KARAPA (M). 6. GOTLA SWAMY, S/O. DURGA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING, NO.AP 16 Z 0188, GVPT -1 DEPOT,. 2 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 VIJAYAWADA, R/O. D.NO.1.362, CHINA KALLEPALLI(V), GANTASAL (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Decree and order dated 25.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 194/2019 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada and consequently dismiss the claim petition 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 to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order dated 25.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 194 of 2019 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim stay orders grated on 13-06-2022 in I.A No: 1/2022 in MACMA NO: 191/2022 and permit petitioners 1 to 5 to withdraw the amount deposited by the 2nd respondent Corporation, APSRTC in the court of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada without furnishing security and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP The Court made the following: 3 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 191/2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for brevity “Act”) assailing the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. This is a case of death. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased. The claim was preferred under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for death of the deceased Medasani Sesharao who died in pursuance to accident occurred on 05.02.2019. The deceased along with the son-in-law went to attend a wedding, on return while he and his son-in-law were waiting on road for his son-in-law to board auto, bus belonging to respondent corporation proceeding from Vijayawada to Kakinada dashed moped motor cycle on which deceased was waiting. Resultantly, he received severe injuries and succumbed. The incident was reported to police who registered crime No.42 of 2019 for offence under Section 304 A of IPC against the driver of the bus. The deceased was stated to be aged about 74 years and doing paddy rice commission business and running a fancy and cool drinks shop at Kakinada-Ramachandrapuram Road 4 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 and earning about Rs.75,000/- monthly. Respondent No.1 driver remained ex parte and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the manner in which accident had occurred and that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Further the age, earning and avocation of the deceased were also denied and the compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 16 Z 0188 by 1st respondent, resulting in death of the deceased? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Claimant No.1/son of the deceased got examined as PW1 and got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Even wife of the deceased was examined as PW2 and son-in-law as PW3 who was an eyewitness to the accident and got marked as Ex.P4. No evidence and no documents are produced on behalf of respondent No.2. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record has come to conclusion that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver, resulting in death of the deceased. 7. While coming to the claim of compensation, since the claimants have failed to establish the earning of the deceased, notional income has been considered as Rs.7,000/- per month and accordingly by applying a multiplier of 5 considering his age as 74 years the income came to be assessed. The tribunal has also awarded loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., 5 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi 1 . The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering, in total awarded Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Assailing the same, respondent corporation preferred present appeal. 8. Heard Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Sai Prakash, learned counsel representing Sri E.Samba Siva Pratap, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month on notational basis, when there is no evidence on record to substantiate the same, the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.3,000/- per month following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr2. He further contended that under the heads of love and affection and mental agony and pain and suffering, the tribunal ought not to have awarded any amounts, inasmuch as the Apex Court has clearly held in Pranay Sethi case referred supra that the claimants were entitled only towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and nothing more for the case of the death. 1 2017 ACC 460 (SC) 2 2009 ACJ 1298 6 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand tried to sustain the impugned order by contending that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month on notional basis and even as per minimum wages, the said amount granted is fair and reasonable. Therefore, it does not warrant for any interference. Insofar as amounts granted towards love and affection and mental agony and pain and suffering, even in case of death the same still can be granted dehors the amounts that have been specified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case referred supra. In support of the said submission, reference has been placed on the judgments in Dhamodaran & Ors v. Bhaskar Sekar & Anr3 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.4. 11. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 12. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and fair or requires to be enhanced? 13. The claimants are not in appeal against the impugned judgment. The Corporation is not assailing the judgment on liability aspect rather the quantum alone is under challenge, even on the front of quantum, challenge is laid to only income that has been determined by tribunal besides awarding compensation towards love and affection and mental agony and pain and 3 2019 ACJ 2695 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 suffering. Though learned counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal has consider Rs.7,000/- per month on notional basis to be the income of the deceased, it clearly does not fall on higher side. Considering the dated of accident to be of the year 2019, the amount so assessed by tribunal is reasonable. Even the minimum wages that are payable to the unskilled persons is roughly at Rs.300/- per day, then, monthly earnings would be around Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, the tribunal, considering the totality of circumstances has assessed the income on notional basis as Rs.7,000/- and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with such fixation of income. Coming to the aspect of granting compensation under the heads of love and affection, mental agony and pain and suffering, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another5 has categorically laid down that towards conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the tribunals are required to award Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Aforesaid amounts have been arrived at by Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity rather than going by case to case basis. Further, the said amounts were directed to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. 14. Therefore, though learned counsel for the respondents has referred to judgments in Dhamodaran v. Bhaskar Sekar and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, since in those 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 two cases, there was considerable gap of time between the date of accident and date of death, in the facts and circumstances of those cases, compensation towards love and affection, mental agony and pain and suffering was awarded. In the present case, as the date of accident and death are same, the aforesaid judgments cannot have any bearing. In view of the same, the tribunal clearly erred in awarding aforesaid amounts. 15. Therefore, the compensation that the claimants would be entitled under the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads, are revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income 7,000-00 Yearly Income 84,000-00 Future prospects (Age being 74 years) - National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4) 84,000-21,000 =63,000 Multiplier 63,000 X 5 =Rs.3,15,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased Rs.3,15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. 9 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 2017) Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 59.8 Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 5 (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) =Rs.2,42,000 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.5,93,300/- 10 HCGR,J MACMA No.191 of 2022 16. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed in part by directing the appellant to deposit the enhanced amount after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Failing which, respondents/claimants are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for recovering the same. On such deposit being made, the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, in proportionate shares, as provided under the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 06th October, 2025 RKS