APHC010090842019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 223/2019 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, KRISHNALANKA, VIJ AYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NAGIDI PRABHU KUMARI, W/O.LATE NAGA BASAVAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, R/O.RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, SANATH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BURRA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.PRAKASHA RAO, HINDU, R/O.VEERAVARAM, KERLAMPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP. 05Z-116. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal assailing the order and decree dated 03.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.138 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- on the death of Nagidi Nagendra Babu @ Chanti in a motor accident that occurred on 28.10.2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant, who is mother of the deceased, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on the death of one Nagidi Nagendra Babu @ Chanti in a motor accident that occurred on 28.10.2015. On the date of the incident, at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased along with his friends Mahesh and Shaik John Basha while they were going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AY 0691 to their owner‟s house from Benz Circle to Screw Bridge and when they reached Pakeergudem Junction, the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 116 being driven by the 1st respondent negligently with high speed hit the motor cycle from behind, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Immediately, he was shifted to 3 Government Hospital, Vijayawada where he died while undergoing treatment. A case was registered against the 1st respondent i.e., driver of the RTC bus for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and charge sheet was also laid. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he is hale and healthy prior to accident. He was a dance master in Sri Chaitanya School and also have vegetable shop in Rythu Bazar and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased. 4. While the 1st respondent-driver remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent Corporation filed its written statement denying the averments made in the petition contending that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 in causing the accident. The deceased was travelling on a motor cycle along with two other persons which is a triple riding and against to traffic rules. Because of triple riding, the deceased could not able to control the motor cycle, which lead to accident. The petitioner shall prove that the deceased was a dance master and also having vegetable shop and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 4 1) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in driving the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 116 and the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what extent and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending RTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 116. 8. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were also answered in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal, has taken the income of the deceased as 200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- (Rs.200 X 30) per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, his monthly income was assessed at Rs.4,000/-, therefore, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4000 X 12). Further, considering the age of the deceased as 25 years as on the 5 date of accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier „18‟ and awarded Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.48,000 X 18). Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.6,000/- towards transportation charges, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,00,000/-. 9. Aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal is filed by respondent No.2 – Insurance Company contending that the deceased died only due to his negligence in driving the motor cycle. The Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on high side and without any documentary proof. The Tribunal also erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased who is a bachelor instead of 1/2. The Tribunal erred in granting excess compensation, as such requested this Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein - claimant contended that the Tribunal after considering the material placed on record has rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects. As the deceased died at the age of 25 years and bachelor, the claimant is entitled for 50% of the notional income towards future prospects. However, it is the contention of the 6 claimant that even if there is no appeal preferred by the claimant, this Court can award just compensation to the claimant. 11. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows “Whether the award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- is on reasonable basis or needs interference? 12. I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. The mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 in support of the petition. Ex.A.1 is the copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 copy of postmortem report, Ex.A4 Motor Vehicles Inspector Report and Ex.A5 copy of Charge Sheet, would go to show that the deceased met with the accident on 28.10.2015 near Pakeerugudem Junction of Vijayawada and sustained bleeding injuries on his head and succumbed to injuries. Ex.A.1 - copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.4 – MVI report and Ex.A.5 – copy of charge sheet would prove that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 116 driven by the 1st Respondent, who caused the accident due to his negligent driving by hitting the motor cycle. 13. Further, the appellant herein – APSRTC has not filed any proof to establish that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motor cycle. 7 14. 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.” 15. 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 accident was occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased in driving the motor cycle. However, PW2 who is said to be eye witness to the accident has categorically deposed that he was also travelling on the same bike and by the time their bike went up to Pakeergudem Junction, the respondent No.1 drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from behind, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The driver of the RTC bus i.e., 1st respondent is examined as RW1 who during his cross-examination stated that he is an 8 accused as per the charge sheet filed by the police. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by the 1st respondent. 16. Coming to the compensation, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation even without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimant without any appeal or cross objections and thereby prays to enhance the compensation. 17. On such plea, as per the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. E.Suseelamma 1 by referring plethora of pronouncements of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court can enhance the compensation, if so they are entitled, without any appeal or cross objections. In the said judgment, it was categorically held that “We are therefore of the considered view that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 rule 33 are to be invoked which are being invoked accordingly, and we find that there is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation”. 12023 SCC Online AP 1725 9 18. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr2, at Paragraph Nos.12 held as follows : 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of „just‟ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. (emphasis supplied) 19. Thereby, this Court can decide the just compensation entitled by the claimant even in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections preferred by the claimant. 20. Coming to the compensation, admittedly, the deceased died at the age of 25 years and at the time of accident he was unmarried. The Tribunal 22017 (3) SCC 315 10 has deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. But, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3” if the deceased is bachelor, normally, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further, as the deceased died at the age of 25 years, it is permissible to add 40% of his notional income towards future prospects. 21. In the present case, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal below has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day taking into consideration minimum daily wage principle. Further, as the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 25 years, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as „18‟ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. (referred supra). 22. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.6000/- per month (Rs.200 X 30). Considering the age of deceased as 25 years, additional 40% (Rs.6000 x 40% = 2,400/-) of the notional income would be added towards his future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6000 + 2400), out of which, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 11 deceased, then the actual annual income would come to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/-(Rs.8,400/- /2 X 12), after applying multiplier „18‟, it would come to Rs.9,07,200/- [Rs.50,400/- X 18]. Hence, the award of amount of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency is enhanced to Rs.9,07,200/-. 23. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.6,000/- towards transportation, which need not be interfered with by this Court. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,43,200/- towards compensation. 24. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court from the compensation earlier granted, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now granted. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.8,64,000/- Rs.9,07,200/- 2. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 4. Transportation charges 6,000/- 6,000/- Total Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.9,43,200/- Amount of compensation now awarded : Rs.9,43,200/- 26. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed enhancing the compensation to Rs.9,43,200/- from 12 Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 18.07.2025 ARB 13 384 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A..No.223 of 2019 DATE: 18.07.2025 ARB