1 APHC010049992019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93/2019 Between: The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C ...APPELLANT AND Yandapalli Kanakaratna Kumari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD 2. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 07.06.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, whereby the said M.V.O.P. filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein against the appellant/APSRTC Corporation and respondent No.6 herein/driver of APSRTC of the crime vehicle, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of one Ramakrishna Prasad in a motor vehicle accident, was allowed in part, in the following terms: “a) An amount of Rs.14,20,000/- towards compensation is awarded to the petitioners with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization on said amount of Rs.14,20,000/-. b) 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount with proportionate costs and interest within three months from the date of this order to the credit of this petition. c) 1st petitioner is apportioned at Rs.5,40,000 + proportionate subsequent interest and entire costs, out of which, Rs.3,00,000/- only shall be put in fixed deposit of any bank for a period of one year and rest of the amount shall be released to 1st petitioner. d) 2nd petitioner is apportioned at Rs.2,40,000/- + proportionate subsequent interest, which shall be put in fixed deposit of any bank till he attains majority. e) 3rd petitioner is apportioned at Rs.2,40,000/- + proportionate subsequent interest, which shall be put in fixed deposit of any bank till he attains majority. f) 4th petitioner is apportioned at Rs.2,00,000/- + proportionate subsequent interest, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- only shall be put in fixed deposit of any bank for a period of one year and rest of the amount shall be released to her. 3 g) 5th petitioner is apportioned at Rs.2,00,000/- + proportionate subsequent interest, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- only shall be put in fixed deposit of any bank for a period of one year and rest of the amount shall be released to him. h) Fee of the Advocate for petitioner is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.” 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: Claimant No.1 is the wife, the claimants Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and the claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Ramakrishna Prasad. On 06.07.2015, the deceased Ramakrishna Prasad and his wife, who is the 1st petitioner, attended a function in Palakol. On the same day, while they were returning to their house in Bhimavaram on CBZ Motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 AV 8531, which was being rided by the deceased with the 1st petitioner as pillion rider, and at about 5.45 p.m., when they reached a road near burial ground of Nandamurugaruvu village in Veeravasaram Mandal of West Godavari District, 1st respondent drove the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 5532 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle. As a result of which, the deceased and his wife fell on the road. The wheel of the bus ran over the right leg and testicles of the deceased and the deceased sustained crush injuries, while his wife sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram in 108 Ambulance. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died. 4 Based on the report of claimant No.1, the Veeravasaram Police, registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2015 under Section 304(A) and 338 of IPC and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.1. The claimants contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, by working as Goldsmith and due to his sudden demise in the road accident, they lost their breadwinner. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a written statement, opposing the claim petition, mainly on the grounds that the deceased himself was riding the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the offending vehicle and thereby, contributed for the occurrence of accident and the petition is therefore bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motor cycle of the deceased. It was further contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle. It was further averred that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and the rate of interest claimed is also on higher side. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “ 1. Whether the 1st respondent drove A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5532 in a rash or negligent manner at the place and time of accident in which Yandapalli Ramakrishna died? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from respondents? 3. If so, to how much amont? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2/APSRTC, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.14,20,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and directed the respondent No.2/APSRTC to deposit the said amount with proportionate costs and interest to the credit of the petition, within three months from the date of order, and apportioned the compensation amount amongst the claimants as extracted above. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased 6 at Rs.10,000/- without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She was also travelling on the motor cycle as a pillion rider along with the husband on the date of accident. Thus, she is an eye-witness to the accident and she is the best person to speak about the manner of accident. Her evidence clearly goes to show that the driver of the APRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and dashed the motor cycle of her husband. Ex.A1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A5- certified copy of charge sheet also support the same. Though respondent No.1-driver of the APSRTC bus was examined as R.W.1 and deposed that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, the fact remains that he did not file written statement. Even otherwise, the self-serving statement of the driver cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. In view of 7 the above reasons, it is clear that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus only. The finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, P.W.1, wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was working as a goldsmith and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. P.W.2, who was the President of Goldsmith Association, Bhimavaram, deposed that he issued Ex.A8-certificate, certifying that the deceased was a goldsmith and he was a member of the said Association and was getting income from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per day. Thus, the evidence on record would establish that the deceased was a goldsmith. However, as there was no sufficient material on record to show that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the monthly income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is proper and needs no interference. After deducting 1/4th of his income towards personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of „15‟ applicable for the age group of 36 to 40 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.13,50,000/-. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal, following the said 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 ACJ 2700 8 decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,20,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants and directing the respondent No.2-Corporation, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, to pay the said compensation amount to the claimants as apportioned amongst them. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 21.03.2025 KGR