1 APHC010058252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 113/2019 Between: APSRTC ...APPELLANT AND S Venkata Lakshumma and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following order: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 05.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.17,02,200/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Two thousand and Two hundred only), as against the claim of Rs.22,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Mallikarjuna in a motor accident that occurred on 13.02.2017. 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: The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is father and 3rd petitioner is the mother of deceased Mallikarjuna. The deceased Mallikarjuna was the owner-cum-driver of auto bearing registration No.AP04-TX-5410. On 13.02.2017, he along with his father went in their auto to a private hospital at Rajampet for health check-up, followed by his relatives, Venkaiah and Bujji, on a motor bike. On the same day, while returning to their village in the auto, at about 2.00 p.m., when they reached near Mandapampalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal on Tirupati – Kadapa road, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP02-Z-0232, while overtaking a lorry coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the said auto. As a result, the deceased and his 3 father received injuries. Immediately, their relatives, Venkataiah and Bujji, shifted them to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at about 5.00 p.m., on the same day. Basing on a report, Vontimitta Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2017 under Section 337, 304(A) of IPC, against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP02-Z-0232. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by running an auto and on account of death of the deceased, their family lost his earnings besides his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- from respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 did not file his written statement. 06. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a written statement, stating that on the fateful day, the driver of the APSRTC Bus was driving the bus on the left side of the road near Mandapampalli village and at that time, the auto driven by the deceased bearing No.AP-4-TX-5410 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed overtaking another auto and on seeing the same, the driver of the RTC bus stopped the same on the extreme left side of the road, but however, the deceased without slowing down the auto, came on wrong side i.e., on the right side of him at a high speed and failed to control the speed of the auto and dashed against the bus. Thus, it was 4 contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but they influenced the police to register a case against the driver of the bus, with a view to get compensation. It was further contended that the deceased was not having valid driving license and valid records of the auto at the time of the accident. The owner and the insurer of the insurance company of the said auto are necessary parties and the claim petition is bad for non- joinder of those necessary parties. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is a speculative one and the same is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the S.Mallikarjuna died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., due to negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02-Z-0232 or not. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pay compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 09. 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.17,02,200/- with subsequent interest at 8% per annum on the said amount from the date 5 of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondents No.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. On deposit of the said amount by the respondents, the petitioners No.2 and 3 were permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each with costs and interest. Further, the 1st petitioner was held entitled to Rs.11,02,200/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Two thousand and two hundred only), out of which, she was permitted to withdraw 50% i.e., Rs.5,51,100/- (Five Lakhs Fifty One thousand and one hundred only) and remaining amount of Rs.5,51,100/- (Five Lakhs Fifty one thousand and one hundred only) with accrued interest and costs was directed to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period three years. 10. 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 at Rs.9,000/- without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, a perusal of the impugned award would show that the respondents have taken inconsistent pleas as to the manner of the accident. In its written statement, the 2nd respondent has contended that the accident occurred when the deceased was overtaking another auto and to the contrary, in his evidence, the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus has deposed that the auto was driven in a zigzag manner by the deceased. Thus, the respondents have taken two different versions as to the manner of accident. Further, P.W.2, who is the father of the deceased, accompanied the deceased in the auto on the fateful day. P.W.2 has categorically deposed that the driver of the APSRTC bus was overtaking a lorry at the time of incident at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto of the deceased. In Ex.A1- First Information Report, Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A4- Charge Sheet, it was clearly mentioned that the respondent No.1 drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking a lorry and dashed against the auto of the deceased. Though the respondents relied on Ex.B1-copy of the judgment by which the 1st respondent was acquitted in the criminal case, the fact remains that the evidence of eye-witness was not accepted by the criminal 7 court only on the ground of lack of corroborative evidence but not on the ground that it was not credible. The Tribunal, having considered the matter in entirety, came to the conclusion that the claimants could prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by the 1st respondent and no interference is warranted with the said finding of the Tribunal. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was owner of the auto and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, as no documents were filed to prove the ownership of the auto and as no sufficient evidence was placed on record to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month i.e. Rs.500/- per day, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to take the daily income of the deceased at Rs.300/- i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month, which is just and proper. As the deceased was self-employed, 40% of his income i.e., Rs.3,600/- was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby his annual income was calculated as Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600/- x 12). After deducting 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 32 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.16,12,800/-. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 8 National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra) the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection, totalling to Rs.90,000/-. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,02,200/- 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. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.04.2025 KGR