APHC010090492019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 197/2019 Between: M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. ...APPELLANT AND G Geetha Alias Seetha Alias Kommuguri Geetha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short „M.V.Act‟), has been filed by the appellant/APSRTC (in short „Corporation‟), challenging the Award, dated 03.12.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2016 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (in short „the Tribunal). 2. The appellant/Corporation herein is the 2nd respondent, the respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and respondent No.2 herein is the 1st respondent (driver of the bus) before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the mother of one Noel Kumar (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). The deceased is a 2nd year polytechnic student in Potti Sri Ramulu Chalavadi Mallikarjuna Rao College of Engineering and Technology, Kothapeta, Vijayawada. On 28.08.2016, at about 07.00 a.m., while the deceased along with his friend Jagadeesh Chandra were proceeding from Raghavaiah park to Rytu Bazar on motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 BG 9227, the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6570 being driven by the 1st respondent in a 3 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, due to which, both the deceased and his friend fell down and sustained injuries. Subsequently, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment, where the deceased was declared as dead. Police have registered a case in Cr.No.208 of 2016 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. As such, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the deceased. 5. While the 1st respondent/driver remained ex-parte, the 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments and further stated that the petitioner has to prove that the death of the deceased is due to the accident arising out of the use of vehicle No.AP 11 Z 6570 and that the driver of the said bus drove in a rash and negligent manner. It was further stated that it was the deceased and his friend who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and have hit the RTC bus and that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 4 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 1. Whether Mr.Gudapati Noel Kumar, son of late Mr.Uday Kumar died due to motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.08.2016 at about 07.00 AM opposite APTDC Office Road, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for and if so from whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief is the petitioner entitled? 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The 2nd respondent has examined the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle as RW1, but, no documents were marked. 8. The Tribunal having observed that the 1st respondent has driven the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and having found no supporting evidence on their behalf, fixed the liability jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and awarded Rs.8,40,000/-. 9. Aggrieved by the said liability, the appellant/Corporation preferred this appeal. 10. Heard Sri. Aravalla Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the respondents. 5 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation contends that the Tribunal below erroneously granted excess compensation to the claimants. He further contended that though the claimants sought Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.8,40,000/- which is over and above the claim. The Tribunal has committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver without there being any acceptable evidence on record. He further contended that it is the deceased who hit the offending vehicle and that there is no wrong on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the deceased being 2nd year Polytechnic student, has a bright future and would become an earning member of his family, if he would have been alive. He also contends that the incident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the bus, who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant/corporation. 13. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- is excessive or on reasonable basis. 6 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 14. It is the evidence of P.W.2 – friend of the deceased who was on the motorcycle at the time of accident, that while the deceased was proceeding from Raghavayya park to Rythu bazaar, the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 6570 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle on its back. Per contra, the 1st respondent/driver was examined as R.W.1 and it is his evidence that the deceased was coming in the wrong direction and fell down. It can be seen that there is no evidence contrary to the evidence adduced by P.W.2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent i.e., the respondents were unable to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. As such, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the son of the petitioner (deceased) died in a road accident on 28.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver, which was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law and the same needs no interference. 15. Now coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, it is an admitted fact that the Tribunal below fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, notionally, as the deceased has earning capacity in future after completing his studies. Additionally, 50% of his earnings were added towards future prospects which amounted to Rs.7,500/- per month. The yearly income was 7 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 computed as Rs.90,000/- [Rs.7,500/- X 12] and after applying the legal principle laid down in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., 1, one-half of his yearly income was deducted towards his personal expenses which computes to Rs.45,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of earning was assessed as Rs.8,10,000/- [Rs.45,000/- X 18]. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Altogether, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- [Rs.8,10,000/- + Rs.30,000/-]. 16. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record and after considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned, just and in accordance with law. There appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the compensation awarded that warrants interference. As such, this Court finds no ground to take a different view and upholds findings of the Tribunal. 17. As already pointed out, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/bus. Even as per Ex.A5 – charge sheet, the negligence was attributed towards the driver of the offending bus. 1 2009 ACJ 1295 SC 8 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 18. In “Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (Civil Appeal No(s).10648 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).21172 of 2021), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of contributory negligence held as follows: “The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.” 19. As per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. But in the present case, nothing on record indicates that the deceased has driven the motorcycle negligently or that the driver of the same failed to follow the traffic rules and contributed to the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident was occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. 20. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.8,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 9 VS,J MACMA_197_2019 21. Hence, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 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: 20.06.2025 Gss