APHC010078532020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 216/2020 Between: 1. DEPOT MANAGER,, APSRTC, SIMHACHALAM DEPOT, VISHAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, NOW AT 1ST FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SMT SABBITHI SIROMANI, W/O LATE JOHN PRASAD, HINDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.58-9-107, FF I, SRI HARI NIVAS, OLD KARASA, NAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SABBITHI KIRAN KUMAR, S/O LATE JOHN PRASAD, HINDU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RIO D.NO.58-9-107, FF1, SRI HARI NIVAS, OLD KARASA, NAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 3. KUM SABBITHI JYOTHI, D/O LATE JOHN PRASAD,HINDU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RIO D.NO.58- 9-107, FF I, SRI HARI NIVAS, OLD KARASA, NAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. KOTHAPALLI APPARAO, S/O DEMUDU, HINDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER OF A.P.S.R.T.C, BUS BEARING NO. AP 11 Z 3331, R/O D-NO. 14-4, CHINAMUSIDIAVADA, DRONAMRAJU NAGAR, PENDURTY, VISAKHAPATNAM. R.4 NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 30/10/2019 passed in MOP No. 215 of 2018 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam IA NO: 1 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 pleased to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in MOP NO 215 of 2018 dt. 30.10.2019 IA 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 be pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MOP NO.215 OF 2016 dated. 30.10.2019 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents 3 Claims Tribunal cum II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. pending disposal of the above MACMA Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM The Court made the following: 4 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2019, passed in MVOP No.215 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent in the said MVOP preferred the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the case on hand are as follows: (i) The petitioners are wife and children of late Sabbithi John Prasad (herein referred to as ‘deceased’) filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. (ii) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was working as a Police Head Constable and was earning Rs.27,219/- per month. It is their further case that on 23.06.2012, while he was proceeding on his moped bearing registration No.AP 31 BM 0415 from the Police Station to Sriharipuram side at about 05.55 p.m., when he reached James Electrical Works, 5 the driver of the offending RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 3331 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries/fractures all over his body. He was taken to INS Kalyani hospital, where, after examining him, the doctors declared that he was brought dead. A case in Crime No.184 of 2012 was registered against the driver/1st respondent for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. In view of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. (iii) The 1st respondent-driver remained ex-parte. The 2nd and 3rd respondents resisted the claim by filing a counter affidavit, contending that the offending bus was stopped at Malkapuram bus stop and after the passengers got alighted, the bus started moving, then the 1st respondent heard sound from behind the bus and found that the deceased fell on the left side of the road. It is further contended that the deceased came at high speed and entered the space between the running bus and the divider and in the said process, the deceased dashed the divider and the bus ran over the two-wheeler. It is specific contention of 6 the respondents that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who did not follow the traffic rules. It is also contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of Insurance Company of the vehicle of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. With the above pleadings, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. In order to prove the case of the claimants, they have examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through P.W.2/Junior Assistant, Office of the Police Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. On the other hand, the respondents have examined R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 5. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.23,07,000/- along with costs and future interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 7 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who suddenly entered the space between the bus and the divider despite the fact that there was no gap, and as a result of which, he had no chance to escape. In order to prove the contention of the respondents, though R.W.1/the conductor was examined, except reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, nothing was placed on record to show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Per contra, the petitioners have examined P.W.3, who was eye witness to the accident who categorically deposed that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Though he was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. 8. Apart from the same, on perusal of Exs.A1 and A5, copies of FIR in Crime No.184 of 2012 on the file of Malkapuram Police Station and the charge sheet filed in the said crime, would reveal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver. 9. In addition to that, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent placed on record the 8 Judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.371 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in which, the 1st respondent-driver was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to pay the same, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 10. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced and accordingly, the same is rejected. 11. In respect of the other ground raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.23,07,000/- towards compensation. As can be seen from the record, in order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have examined P.W.2/Junior Assistant working in the office of Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, through him Ex.X2/copy of the salary certificate was marked. On perusal of the same, it is evident that he was drawing salary of Rs.27,219/- per month. Though the learned counsel for the appellant disputed the same, nothing is 9 placed on record to show that the salary certificate issued by the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam is not genuine. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is rejected. 12. Though various other grounds were raised before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the same, in the present appeal. 13. Further, while computing the compensation, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe1” and “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2”, awarded compensation of Rs.23,07,000/- under various conventional heads. In view of the same, the order of the Tribunal does not want any interference by this Court. 14. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 ACJ 2700 10 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.22.11.2025 JLV 11 71 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.216 OF 2020 Date: 22.11.2025 JLV