APHC010065262022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 51/2022 Between: Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND Saringula Venkata Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): N RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.265 of 2015 dated 21.06.2021. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Car bearing No.AP 16Z 0263 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are wife and children of one Saringula Venkatesh (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), are 2 the claimants before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime car, respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 05.10.2015, while the deceased crossing the road near Harsha Nursery at Martur, the crime car driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed the deceased, resulted the deceased died on the spot. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime car. 5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not 1st respondent/driver of the crime car, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 3 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased Saringula Venkatesh, died in the accident that occurred at 11.30 P.M. on 05.10.2015 opposite to Harsh Nurseries, Martur on N.H.16 Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent being driver of Car bearing No.AP 16Z 0263? 2.Whether the petitioners claiming to be dependents (LRs) of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation? and 3.If so, to what amount and from whom?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1, however, no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime car by the 1st respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,12,500/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the 4 date of realization against the respondents, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC. 10. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident and involvement of the crime car. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimants as well driver of the crime car against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased without observing the vehicular traffic and in intoxication state crossing the road, thereby, the 5 incident was occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in causing the incident. 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in causing the incident, the claimant relied upon the testimony as P.W.2 and EXs.P.1 to P.5. P.W.2 categorically testified that the deceased was succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. On perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.5, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1st respondent. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1st respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.5. 15. Furthermore, it is the categorical testimony of R.W.1 driver of the crime car that himself surrendered before the 6 police and that the criminal case filed against him is pending for trial. He also testified that he gave report to the police alleging that the deceased and some others were crossing the road. No material was placed on record to say that the deceased in intoxication state by the time of incident, which is nothing but baseless allegation. Thereby, it is clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 1st respondent, which requires no interference 16. Further the Tribunal after considering material on record and by following the renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, deducting the personal and living expenses, adding future prospects and by applying suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased, rightly calculated the 1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 2 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 7 compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 17. Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellant/APSRTC. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 07.03.2025 Krs 8 118 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.51 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 07.03.2025 Krs