APHC010089922019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 190/2019 Between: 1. PASARA SATYAVATYHI, W/O. LATE CHANDRA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 11-99, VADDIVARIMERAKA, SADDUKADAPA VILLAGE - 534275, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. CHINCHARI NIRMALA RATNA SAILAJA, R/O. D.NO. 35-5-20, KASAPAVARI STREET, MANGALAVARAU PET, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533102, OFF. STAFF NO. 602820, RTC CONSTABLE, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, GOKAVARAM DEPOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR COLLECTORATE, ELURU - 5344006, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.10.22018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 478/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) West Godavari at Eluru in so far as it went against to the appellant. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 26 days in filing the above appeal against the 2 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 order and decree dated 30-10-2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 478/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) West Godavari at Eluru. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 216/2019 Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE ELURU,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. PARASA SATYAVATHI, VADDIVARIMERAKA, SDDUKADAPA VILLAGE, VEMULADEEVI WEST GRAMPANCHAYAT NARASAPURAM DEPOT, WEST GODAVARI 2. CHINCHARI TIKKANI TIKKIRINIRMALA RATNA SAILAJA, KASAPAVARI STREET, MANFGALAVARAPU PET, RAJAHMUNDRY OFFICE ADDRESS NO.602820,RTC CONSTABLE, GOKAVARAM DEPOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...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 Judgement and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE).West Godavari at Eluru passed in M.V.O.P. nO.478 OF 2017 DATED 30-10-2018 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 3 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 pleased to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgement and Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.West Godavari at Eluru passed in M.V.O.P No. 478 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the above Appeal against the order and Decree dt. 16-07-2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scs & Sts (PoA) Act 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short „M.V.Act‟), challenging the Award dated 30.10.2018, pass ed in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (in short „the Tribunal‟) wherein, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,10,250/- only, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. M.A.C.M.A.No.190 of 2019 is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the awarded amount, whereas, M.A.C.M.A.No.216 of 2019 is filed by APSRTC, with a plea to set- aside the compensation awarded therein. Since both the appeals arose out of the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2017, this Court feels it appropriate to decide both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant is the mother of one Parasa Adinarayana (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟), respondent No.1 is the wife of driver of the bus bearing No.AP29Z3850 and respondent No.2 is APSRTC. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 5 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 The deceased was aged about 22 years and unmarried, as on the date of accident. He used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, by working as a mason. On 28.01.2014, the deceased, along with two other co-workers (namely Valavala Suresh Kumar and Thota Prasad) went to Lakshmipuram village of Dwaraka Tirumala mandal for attending mason work and on 29.01.2014, during night hours, they left Lakshmipuram village for Bhimadole junction on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5502 belonging to the deceased. When they reached Tamalapakulagunta village, near Durga Agro Industries situated on Gundugolanu – Kovvuru state highway, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3850, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which, the deceased and the other two sustained fatal injuries. The deceased and Thota Prasad died on the spot. Immediately, the injured (Valavala Suresh Kumar) was shifted to District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, where, he succumbed to the injuries, while undergoing treatment. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2014 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of IPC. Subsequently, due to ill-health, the driver of the offending bus died. 5. While the 1st respondent remained ex-parte, the 2nd respondent filed a written statement refuting the averments of the 6 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 claimant and contending that the deceased was the rider and Valavala Suresh Kumar, Thota Prasad were pillion riders of the motorcycle and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the rider. It is further contended that in Ex.A.1 (report), it was mentioned that an „unknown vehicle‟ dashed the motorcycle and in order to claim compensation, the offending bus was implicated and as such, requested to reject the said claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident dated 29.01.2014 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 z 3850, and whether the deceased Parasa Adinarayana succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, the petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2, 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 8. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence of P.W.2 (eyewitness), coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and as well as the rider of the motorcycle, as the rider did not 7 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 take precautions as envisaged in Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 accordingly. With regard to the quantum, the Tribunal, relying upon the material and oral evidence adduced by the claimant, held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,10,250/- against the claimed sum of Rs.20,00,000/- 9. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, M.A.C.M.A.No.190 of 2019 is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the awarded amount, whereas, M.A.C.M.A.No.216 of 2019 is filed by APSRTC, with a plea to set-aside the compensation awarded therein. 10. Heard Sri. K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening 25% liability on the rider of the motorcycle on the ground that rider was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, though he used to earn Rs.15,000/- as a mason. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of 8 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 India in Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance Company limited and ors.,1, learned counsel for the claimant requested this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for APSRTC vehemently contended that the Tribunal, ought to have appreciated the fact that the claimant failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. He further contended that the vehicle which hit the motorcycle was mentioned as „unknown vehicle‟ in the FIR (Ex.A.1) and the offending bus belonging to APSRTC was implicated, only with a bogus intention for getting compensation. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire liability on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, as three persons were travelling on the motorcycle which is contrary to Section 128 of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, learned Standing Counsel requested this Court to set-aside the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs.7,10,250/- is insufficient or on reasonable basis. 1 (2020) 3 SCC 57 9 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 14. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that on 28.01.2014, the deceased along with two others went to Lakshmipuram village of Dwaraka Tirumala mandal, in order to attend mason work. On the next day, during night, all the three persons left Lakshmipuram village on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5502 to Bhimadole junction. When they reached Tamalapakulagunta village, near Durga agro industries, a bus belonging to APSRTC bearing No.AP 29 Z 3850, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle on which the deceased and two others were travelling, due to which, they sustained injuries. While two of them died on the spot, the said Valavala Suresh Kumar succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment. 15. It can be seen that P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the claimant and among them, P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence, P.W.2 categorically stated that on 29.01.2014, at about 08.30 p.m., he went to Nallajarla in a hire auto with passengers and after dropping passengers, while he was returning to Bhimadole, at about 09.30 p.m., he parked the auto at weigh bridge and went to the other side of the road to attend calls of nature. At that point of time, a bus belonging to APSRTC, which was being driven from Nallajarla side to Bhimadole side, came in a rash 10 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which, three persons fell down from the motorcycle. Thereafter, in spite of hitting an ongoing lorry on its back, which resulted in the damage of front portion of the said bus, the bus driver did not stop the bus and went away. When P.W.2 saw the back side of the bus, he found „RJY‟ and Rajahmundry-Tirupati sign board and thus came to know that the bus belongs to Rajahmundry RTC depot. It is his further evidence that when he went to the accident spot, he found three persons in unconscious state. Frightened by the said situation, he left the scene. 16. Though it was contended by learned Standing Counsel that neither the driver nor conductor or any other passenger of the bus reported the accident that occurred on 29.01.2014 and that the case on hand was filed against APSRTC only to claim compensation, this Court do not find any evidence on record in support of the said contention. In view of the fact that no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of APSRTC to that extent and as there is no contrary evidence rebutting the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. 17. However, the Tribunal, considering that the deceased and two others were travelling on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 11 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 5502, contrary to the safety measures envisaged for drivers and pillion riders under Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has ascertained that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle as well and hence, 25% of the entitled amount of compensation was deducted, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is untenable. In Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance Company limited and ors., (1st supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court, while dealing with a similar case wherein a motorcycle, on which three persons were travelling, was hit by a car from behind, held as under: “12. …. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle, not to carry more than one person on the motorcycle. Section 184-C, inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a casual connection between the violation and the accident or a casual connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a 12 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motorcycle…” 18. It can be understood from the aforesaid judgment that if a motorcycle is being driven by a rider along with two pillion riders, the same is against the law because a two-wheeler is only allowed to carry one pillion rider. However, just because the said rule is violated, they cannot be held responsible for the accident, but, they are liable for penalty as under Section 184-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. To come to a finding that their negligence contributed to the accident, it must be shown that having three people on the motorcycle either caused the accident or made the injuries worse. In other words, there needs to be a clear connection between the violation of rule and the impact of the accident. 19. In the case on hand, except stating that the deceased, along with two others were triple riding on the motorcycle, there is no proof of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, including the deceased herein. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. 13 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased contributed to the accident, the victim should not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. As such, the reduction of 25% towards contributory negligence, is unjustified and the same has to be set aside. 20. Coming to the quantum of compensation, though the claimant contended that the deceased used to work as mason and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of documentary proof regarding the same, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, out of which, ½ was deducted towards personal expenses [Rs.6,000/- X ½ = Rs.3,000/-] as the deceased was unmarried. As such, the yearly earnings of the deceased becomes Rs.36,000/- [Rs.3,000/- X 12]. As the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of incident, the Tribunal has applied multiplier „18‟ as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2 and has calculated the compensation towards loss of dependency as Rs.6,48,000/- [Rs.36,000/- X „18‟ = Rs.6,48,000/-]. Further, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, 40% of the amount [Rs.6,48,000/- X 40% = Rs.2,59,200/-] was added towards future prospects and an amount of Rs.9,07,200/- [Rs.6,48,000/- + 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 14 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 Rs.2,59,200/-] was determined towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of estate, love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Further, towards funeral expenses and transportation charges, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively totaling an amount of Rs.9,47,000/-. But, the Tribunal inappropriately fastened 25% liability against the deceased for violating the safety provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which in the considered opinion of this Court and in view of the aforesaid discussion, is untenable. As the contributory negligence attributed against the deceased was not proved, the award of amount of Rs.7,10,250/- is enhanced to Rs.9,47,000/-. 21. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal : Rs.7,10,250/- Amount of compensation now enhanced : Rs.2,36,750/- --------------------- Amount of compensation now awarded : Rs.9,47,000/- --------------------- 22) In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.190 of 2019 is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.9,47,000/- from Rs.7,10,250/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned 15 VS,J MACMA_190 & 216_2019 to the claimant in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. M.A.C.M.A.No.216 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 25.07.2025 Gss