APHC010098632022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 98/2022 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (apsrtc), ...APPELLANT AND Penumala Chandra Kalyani Pothuraju Chandra Kalyani and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.181 of 2017 dated 06.12.2021. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 3259 (hereinafter referred to as “crime us”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the wife and mother of one Pothuraju Rajasekhar (hereinafter called as “deceased”) 2 respectively. The respondent No.3 herein is the driver of the crime bus. 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 22.05.2016 at about 02.30 pm., while the deceased being rider along with two pillion riders proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 DE 2286, when they reached at Uppuluru Railway gate, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted they fell on the road, the crime bus ran over the deceased and he received grievous injuries. When the deceased was shifted to Help Hospital, Vijayawada by the pillion riders, declared that he was brought dead. ii). The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- by doing mason works and contributed the same for the welfare 3 of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter 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 bus; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent in driving the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 3259 and the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so to what extent and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of 4 the respondent No.2, 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1, however, no documents were marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,74,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the 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 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 bus. It is also not in 5 dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant as well driver of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the incident since he allowed two pillion riders in his motorcycle at the time of accident. 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, cause of the incident, the claimants relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are said to be pillion riders in the motorcycle by the time of incident, and Exs.A.1 and A.5 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.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 bus by the 1st respondent. The testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross 6 examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, Exs.A.1 and A.5. 15. Furthermore, R.W.1, who is driver of the crime bus by the date of incident, categorically testified that a criminal case was registered against him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, wherein police after due investigation filed charge sheet. Thereby, in view of the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5, it is categorical that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 16. Now, it is relevant to refer a pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.V.Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd1, wherein also there was a defence of branch of policy condition because there was overloading of bus and more passengers were travelling than the permissible capacity. It was categorically observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that “as overloading of bus had not played any role in the road accident and was not prime cause of accident, so Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim only on the ground of overloading 1 (1996) CPJ 18 (S.C.) 7 and as the claim has been allowed against the Insurance Company on non-standard basis, then such award was found justified.” 17. In the present case on hand also, it is not the case of the appellant/APSRTC that the incident was occurred due to three persons on the motorcycle of the deceased by riding with two pillion riders, which resulted to the cause of accident, thereby, in view of the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. The Tribunal after appreciating the above facts thoroughly and by relying upon the pronouncements of Apex Court came to the rightly conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, which requires no interference. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased and by taking the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month, when claim is made for Rs.10,000/- per month, by following the renowned pronouncements of 8 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi3, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants by deducing personal and living expenses, adding future prospects. 19. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the finding arrived by the Tribunal, 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 accordingly. 20. 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: 13.03.2025 Krs 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 3 2017 ACJ 2700 9 450 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.98 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 13.03.2025 Krs