aSK. s' APHC010140512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH f/^ AT AMARAVATI 3 ^9 oAv FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A Nos. 373 & 221 of 2019 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 373 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 601 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal (Principal District Judge) West Godavari, Eluru Between: 1. Thota Satyavathi, W/o. Satyanarayana @ China Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years , R/o. D.No. 4-24, Karimisettipalem, H/o Turuputhallu Village, Narsapuram Mandal, W.G.District. 2. Thota Satyanarayana @ China Satyanarayana,, S/o. Veera Swamy, Aged about 50 years, R/o. D.No. 4-24, Karimisettipalem Turuputhallu Village, Narsapuram Mandal, W.G.District H/o ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Chinchari Tikkani Alias Tikkiri Nirmala Ratna Sailaja, W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, Aged about 29 years, R/o, D. No. 35-5-20, Kasapavari Street, Mangalavarapu Pet, Rajahmundry-533 102, Office Address Staff No.602820, RTC Constable, APSRTC, Vijayawada., Gokavaram Depot, E.G.Dt. Road Transport Corporation. Rep. by its Regional Office, Near Collectorate, Eluru-534 006, 2. Andhra Pradesh State Regional Manager West Godavari District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.2; Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada APHC010092142019 AP.r.lDFNT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 221 OF 2019 173 of M.V Act, against the judgment and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District MVOP.601 of 2017 dated MOTOR Appeal filed under Section decree passed by the judge). West Godavari at Eluru passed in 30-10-2018 Between: Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, New collectorate APSRTC Eluru, W.G.Dist ...Appellant/2"'* Respondent AND 1. Smt Thota Satyavathi, D.No. 4-24, Kafimisettipalem, H/o Turuputhallu Village Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District Satyanarayana @ China Satyanarayana Karimisettipalem H/O Turuputhallu Village Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District D.NO. 4-24. 2. Thota 3. Smt Chinchari Tikkani, Tikkiri Nirmala Ratna Saiija, Kasapavari Street, Mangalavarapu Pet, Rajahmundry Gokavaram Depot, East Godavari district ...Respondent/1®* Respondent lA 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 grant stay of execution of decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge). West Godavari at Eluru passed in MVOP No. 601 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 pending disposal of the MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant; Sri S V Ramana Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu The Court made the following order: to APHC010140512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Origirial 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: 373/2019 Between: 1.THOTA SATYAVATHI, W/0. SATYANARAYANA @ CHINA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/0. D.NO. 4-24, KARIMISETTIPALEM, H/0 TURUPUTHALLU VILLAGE, NARSAPURAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. 2.THOTA SATYANARAYANA @ CHINA SATYANARAYANA,, S/0. VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/0. D.NO. 4-24, VILLAGE, KARIMISETTIPALEM, NARSAPURAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT H/0 TURUPUTHALLU ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.CHINCHARI TIKKANI ALIAS TIKKIRI NIRMALA RATNA SAILAJA, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO @ VASU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/0' D. NO. 35-5-20, KASAPAVARI STREET, MANGALAVARAPU RAJAHMUNDRY-533 102, OFFICE ADDRESS STAFF RTC CONSTABLE, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADAD., PET, N0.602820, GOKAVARAM DEPOT, E.G.DT. 2.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, E1URU-534 006, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tothe order and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 601 2 VSJ MACMA_373 & 221 2019 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal Judge) West Godavari, Eluru lA NO: 1 OF 2019 ( Principal District 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 66 days ih filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree dated 30.10,2018 No.601/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims District Judge), W.G. Dist., Eluru. passed in M.V.O.P. Tribunal ( Principal Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 221/2019 Between: 1.APSRTC, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL NEW COLLCTORATE ELURU, W.G.DIST OFFICE, ...APPELLANT AND 1.SMT THOTA SATYAVATHI, D.NO. 4-24, KARIMISETTIPALEM NARASAPURAM MAN DAL, WEST H/0 TURUPUTHALLU VILLAGE GODAVARI DISTRICT 2.THOTA SATYANARAYANA CHINA SATYANARAYANA KARIMISETTIPALEM D.NO. 4-24, VILLAGE H/0 TURUPUTHALLU NARASAPURAM MANUAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3.SMT CHINCHARI TIKKANI TIKKIRI NIRMALA RATNA SAILJA, KASAPAVARI STREET, MANGALAVARAPU PET, RAJAHMUNDRY GOKAVARAM DEPOT,. EAST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): VS,J 3 MACMA 373 &221_2019 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 assidents claims tribunal(Principal District judge). West GODAVARI at Eluru passed in MVOP.601 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 lA 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 30 days in filing the appeal against the judgement and decree passed by motor accidents claims tribunal(Principal District judge), west Godavari at Eluru passed in MVOP No. 601 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 and pass lA 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of decree passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal(Principal District Judge). West Godavari at Eluru passed in MVOP No. 601 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 pending disposal of the MACMA Counsel for the Appellant; 1.S VRAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: 4 VSJ MACMA 373 & 221 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, passed in M.V.O.P.No.601 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.373 of 2019 is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the awarded amount, whereas. M.A.C.M.A.No.221 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.601 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 claimants are the mother and father of one Thota Prasad (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 VSJ . MACMA_373 & 221_2019 The deceased was aged about 22 years and unmarried 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 Parasa Adinarayana and Valavala Suresh Kumar) went to Lakshmipuram village of Dwaraka Tirumala for attending mason work and on 29.01.2014, during night hours they left Lakshmipuram village for Bhimadole junction motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5502 belonging to one Parasa Adinarayana. When they reached Tamalapakulagunta village 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 said Parasa Adinarayana and the deceased 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 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. , as mandal on a near a case was 5. While the 1 respondent remained ex-parte, the 2^^ respondent filed a written statement refuting the averments of the 6 VS,J MACI\/IA_373 & 221 2019 n claimants and contending that one Parasa Adinarayana was the rider and the deceased, Valavala Suresh Kumar 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 Thota Prasad 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 claimants, the petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2, 3 and Exs.AI 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.AI 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 MACIVIA_373 & 221_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 claimants, held that the claimants entitled for compensation of Rs.7,10,250/- against the claimed of Rs.20,00,000/- are sum 9. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the awarded amount, whereas, M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2019 is filed by APSRTC, with a plea to set-aside the compensation awarded therein. M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2019 10. Heard Sri. K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the claimants 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_373 & 221 2019 India in Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. Insurance Company limited and ors.,'', learned counsel for the claimants requested this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. National 12. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for APSRTC vehemently contended that the Tribunal, ought to have appreciated the fact that the claimants 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. ' (2020) 3 see 57 9 VS,J MACMA_373 & 221 2019 14. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that on 28.01.2014, the deceased along \A/ith 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 claimants and among them, P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence, P.W.2 categorically stated that 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 on 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 BhimadolO/Side, came in a rash 10 VS,J MACMA_373 & 221 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. However, the Tribunal, considering that the deceased and 17. two others were travelling on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 11 VS,J MACMA 373 & 221 20l9 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., (1"' 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 otbenwise have resulted in a VS,J 12 MACMA_373 & 221_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...” It can be understood from the aforesaid judgment that if a 18. 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. 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. 19. 13 VS‘,J , MACMA_373 & 221 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 claimants 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, 72 was deducted towards personal expenses [Rs.6,000/- X 72 = 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^ 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/- + (2009) 6 see 121 VS,J 14 MACMA_373 & 221_2019 towards loss of dependency. determined Rs.2,59,200/-] was loss of estate, love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.15,000/-. Further, towards funeral expenses and awarded Rs.15,000/- and Towards an transportation charges, the Tribunal has Rs.10,000/- respectively totaling an Tribunal inappropriately fastened amount of Rs.9,47,000/-. But 25% liability against the the deceased for violating the safety provisions under the Motor Vehicles of this Court and in view of the Act, which in the considered opinion aforesaid discussion, is untenable, the deceased was As the contributory negligence not proved, the award of attributed against amount of Rs.7,10,250/- isis enhanced to Rs.9,47,000/-. the Tribunal under different compensation awarded by enhanced by this Court, are as follows: The 21. heads and the amounts awarded is as follows. ; Rs.7,10,250/- ; Rs.2,36,750/- Amount of compensation now Total compensation of compensation now enhanced awarded by the Tribunal Amount . Rs.9,47,000/- now awarded Amount of compensation M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2019 is partly allowed, Rs.9,47,000/- from Rs.7,10,250/- date of filing of the petition till the amount shall be apportioned In the result, the 22) to enhancing the compensation at 7.5% P.A. from the with interest date of realization. The compensation 15 VS,i MACMA_373 & 221_2019 ■ %■ among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR j// //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal (Principal District Judge),Eluru, West Godavari district (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S.V.Ramana, Advocate.[OPUCl Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate.[OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 4. OneCCto 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MAGMA Nos. 373 & 221 OF 2019 AND^ I (11 SEP 2025 ^ Current Section . ^ o m PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA No.373 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MAGMA No. 221 of 2019 - -H APHC010092142019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 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: 221 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District judge). West Godavari at Eluru passed in MVOP.601 of 2017 dated 30-10-2018 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, New collectorate Eluru, W.G.Dist ...Appellant/2"'^ Respondent AND 1. Smt Thota Satyavathi, D.No. 4-24, Karimisettipalem, H/o Turuputhallu Village Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District 2. Thota Satyanarayana, China Satyanarayana, D.NO. 4-24, Karimisettipalem H/O Turuputhallu Village Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District 3. Smt Chinchari Tikkani, Tikkiri Nirmala Ratna Saiija, Kasapavari Street, Mangalavarapu Pet, Rajahmundry Gokavaram Depot, East Godavari district ...Respondent/1®‘ Respondent This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri S V Ramana, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 &2. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA No.221 of 2019 be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal (Principal District Judge),Eluru, West Godavari district 2. Two CD Copies V- (■. < : HIGH COURT ■> • ; i DATED:25/07/2025 DECREE IMACMA No.221 OF 2019 ANOT^ I n 1 SEP 2025 ^ . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010140512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 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: 373 OF 2019 Between: 1. Thota Satyavathi, W/o. Satyanarayana @ China Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years , R/o. D.No. 4-24, Karimisettipalem, H/o Turuputhallu Village, Narsapuram Mandal, W.G.District. 2. Thota Satyanarayana @ China Satyanarayana,, S/o. Veera Swamy, Aged about 50 years, R/o. D.No. 4-24, Karimisettipalem, H/o Turuputhallu Village, Narsapuram Mandal, W.G.District ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Chinchari Tikkani Alias Tikkiri Nirmala Ratna Sailaja, W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, Aged about 29 years, R/o, D. No. 35-5-20, Kasapavari Street, Mangalavarapu Pet, Rajahmundry-533 102, Office Address Staff No.602820, RTC Constable, APSRTC, Vijayawada., Gokavaram Depot, E.G.Dt. 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Near Collectorate, Eluru-534 006, West Godavari District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 601 of 2017 i^the file of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal (Principal District Judge) West Godavari, Eluru v-- This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the Appellant and none for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2019 be and hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the compensation be and hereby is enhanced 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; 3. That the compensation amount be and hereby is apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fv SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal (Principal District Judge),Eluru West Godavari district 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT :25/07/2025 t DECREE MACMA NO. 373 OF 2019 I y SEP 2025 % Voi?"' PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA