^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT AT AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA Nos.228 of 2020 and 402 nf 7n9i MACMA No.228 of 2070 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore Between: Act, against the in M.V.O.P. No. 64 of 2017 -cum-IV Additional District. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7 2. Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim Vinjamuru Village and Mandal. aged about 32 years, R/o. 3. Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal. SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/2"'' Respondent 4 (4*^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal) 5. Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal Muslim, aged 43 SPSR Nellore District. 6. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal 7. Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record Respondent as per Court Order Dated in MAGMA No.228 of 2020) , Muslim, aged 22 SPSR Nellore District. Muslim, aged 19 SPSR Nellore District. as LR of the deceased 1®* 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 ...Respondents (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanisefty Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma MACMA No.402 nf ono'i Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 65 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Between: Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Director, PNBS, Vijayawada. , Rep by Managing ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7, 2. Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal. 3. Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/2"'' Respondent (4''’ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal) 5. Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 6. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. St (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of the deceased 1 Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 in MAGMA No.402 of 2021) ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 and 402 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.402 of 2021 is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2017 on the file the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal'). Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the 2. material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by way of common judgment. 3. Both the appeals are preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 (hereinafter referred as "crime bus"). The respondent Nos.l to 3 are children of the deceased Shaik Madar Saheb and Shaik Beebi Jan (hereinafter called as 'the deceased No.l and 2') who died in a motor accident. The respondent No.4 is driver of the crime vehicle and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are legal representatives of the respondent No.l-late Shaik Sharif. 4. , The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 2 i). On 28.09.2014 at about 09.45 A.M., when Shaik Beebi J0n and her husband Shaik Madar Saheb were proceeding on a motor cycle which was driven by her husband and at about 9.30 A.M., when they reached near turning at Ananthapuram Village, Kaligiri Mandal, at that time, one A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 belong to Kavali Depot while proceeding from Gudladona Village to Siddanakonduru being driven by 2""^ respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, Shaik Madar Saheb died on the spot and Shaik Beebi Jan sustained severe injuries and she was shifted to Elite Hospital, Tirupati, where she succumbed to injuries on 05.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. A case was registered in Crime No. 148 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the 2"'^ respondent in Kaligiri Police Station, iii) Seeking for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- each along with interest against respondents 1 and 2 on the death of the deceased Nos.l and 2 in a motor accident, the claimants filed motor vehicle original petition. 3 Respondent No.l filed counter denying the averments made 5. in the petition and further denied the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of driving of 2'^^ respondent and there is negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle and that the amount claimed is excessive. 6. Respondent No.2 being the driver of the bus filed counter denying manner of accident, age and income of the deceased. He further contended that the drove the vehicle slowly and due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle only, the accident occurred. 7. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.RNo.64 of 2017: 1. Whether theaccident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of A.RS.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 by the 2""^ Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Beebi Jan? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled 8. the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.RNo.65 of 2017: 4 1. Whether the accident had negligent driving of A.RS.R.T.C. Bus bearing 5507 by the 2^'" Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Madar Saheb? 2. Whether the petitioners occurred due to the rash and No.AP 11 2 are entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which the respondents? of 3. To what relief? 9. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, the claimants, A.4weremarked. On behalf of the both the petitions. on behalf of PWslto 3wereexamined and Exs.A.l to respondents, RWl is examined in 10. On the material, the tribunal, having that the accident occurred due to the rash the driver of the APSRTC, held that the claimants compensation of Rs.6,10,800/- with interest at 7.50/0 come to the conclusion and negligent driving of are entitled per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit in both the petitions. 11. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri A. Sree Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel appellant submits that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding for the 5 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus without there being any acceptable evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to have seen that there is negligence on the part of the deceased while driving the motor bike without following the road traffic rules. There is no proof of employment of the both the deceased and the Tribunal erred in taking notional income of both the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. There is no cogent evidence adduced by the claimants for granting compensation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and hence, to allow the appeals. Sri A. Sree Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants submits that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus the accident occurred and the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation after considering the material on record and hence, prays to dismiss the appeals. 13. Now, the point that arise for determination is "whether the orders of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what 14. extent? 15. POINT: 6 It is not in dispute about the death of the both the deceased in the incident and involvement of the RTC Bus. The appellant is also not disputing about the same. 16. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased No.l in occurrence of the incident. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and tribunal also erred in calculating the actual income of the deceased. The multiplier applied by the tribunal is also not in accordance with law. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the 17. material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3. PWl is the son of the deceased who is admittedly not the eye witness to the accident. In support of his he got marked Ex.Al to A3 documents. Since he is not an eye witness, his evidence is no way helpful on whose negligence the accident occurred. Now, coming to the evidence of PWs 2 and witnesses to the incident admittedly testified about the rash and negligent act of the driving of the driver of the also elicited during cross case, 3 who are eye ofending vehicle Nothing was if 7 examination to disbelieve their testimony and no evidence is put forth to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased No.l in causing the accident. Therefore, as righty held by the tribunal, the Respondent No.l failed to rebut the said evidence and it is clearly held that the Respondent No.2 is responsible for the accident. 18. Coming to the dependents, it can be safely held that PWs 1 to 3 are the claimants who are children of the deceased and subsequently, the claimant No.l died and his legal representatives are brought on record and they are entitled for the compensation. 19. Now, with regard to income of the deceased, since here is no dispute about the age of the both the deceased as 55 and 53 years, basing on Ex.Al to A3, though the claimants have claimed that the deceased are earning Rs. 10,000/- each per month, but in the absence of any documentary proof in respect of the same, assuming the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- each, has rightly applied the multiplier and calculated the amounts entitled by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.6,10,800/- each on the death of both the deceased. 8 3E> 20. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference the Tribunal regarding all •s no need to disturb the well-articulated as such, the appeals preferred by the point is answered warrants to the findings recorded by aspects and as there i* orders passed by the Tribunal, the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, against the appellant. 21. In the result, M.A.CM.A.228 dismissed. There shall be of 2020 and 402 of 2021 are no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if Miscellaneous petitions pending any, stand vacated, it any, stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To nlll Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore SPSR records If any) ^ [ORJC^ Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) 3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies -cum-IV Additional Nellore District, (with Advocate Pradesh at TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.Nos.228 of 2020 & 402 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMAs WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA No.228 of 2020 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7, 2. Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal. 3. Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/2"'^ Respondent (4'^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal) 5. Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. « , 6. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. St (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of the deceased 1 Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 in MAGMA No.228 of 2020) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 64 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; That there shallbe no order as to costs in this appeal. 1. 2. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C^^FFICER //TRUE COPY// SECTI To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 DECREE MACIVIA.No.228 of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA - ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA No.402 of 2021 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7, 2. Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal. 3. Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/2"'' Respondent (4'*^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal) 5. Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. r 6. Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of the deceased 1®* Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 in MAGMA No.402 of 2021) 7. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 65 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1. 2. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Three CD Copies To vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 DECREE MACWIA.No.402 of 2021 o 03 SEP 20?5 S) Current section . ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA