APHC010100032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.235 of 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11-12-2018 in MVOP No.516/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Badvel Depot), Rep. by its Regional Manager, RMO Officer, RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa City, YSR District. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Kale Adilakshumma, W/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana, Hindu, Housewife, aged about 43 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 2. Kale Raja, S/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana Hindu, Driver, aged about 28 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 3. Kale Sekhar, S/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana, Hindu, Student, aged about 24 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. G V S Rayudu, S/o.Subbanna, aged about 55 years, Driver of APSRTC Bus, Badvel Depot, R/o. Badvel Town and Mandal, YSR District. (R-4 not necessary in this MAGMA) ...Respondent/Respondent 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 to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP No.516 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Aravala Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri D Kodandarami Reddy The Court made the following: / APHC010100032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY JHE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 235/2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...APPELLANT AND Kale Adilakshumma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA_235_2019 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant/APSR TC (in short ‘Corporation’), challenging the Award, dated 11.12.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (in short ‘the Tribunal). The appellant/Corporation herein is the 1®* respondent, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants and respondent No.4 herein is the 2"^^ respondent (driver of the bus) before the Tribunal. 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. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The 1®* petitioner is the wife, 2 nd and 3'^'^ petitioners are the sons of one Kale Chinna Ramanaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). On 06.08.2017, while the deceased was going on foot in Badvel town, opposite to Chaitanya college, an RTC bus bearing NO.AP04Z0053, which was being driven by the 2'^^ respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell on the ground and has sustained grievous injuries. 3 VS,j MACMA 235 2019 , Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Badvel and subsequently he was shifted to RIMS, Kadapa and to G.G. Hospital i Kurnool for further treatment. On 10.08.2017, while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.238 of 2017 against the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 304A of I PC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the petitioners/claimants claimed a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- as compensation towards the death of the deceased. While the 2^^ respondent/d river remained ex-parte, the 1 respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments St 5. and further stated that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident. It is stated that the deceased crossed the bus in a jig jag manner without observing the bus and that he fell on the ground in a drunken condition. The 2""^ respondent has not driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The claim of the petitioners under various heads are highly excessive and without any basis and that they are not entitled for claiming compensation. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration; 4 VS,J MACMA_235 2019 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0053? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.AI to A11 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal having observed that the 2"^^ 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 8. awarded Rs.7,20,000/-. 9. Aggrieved by the said liability, the appellant/Corporation preferred this appeal. 10. Heard Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed irregularity in holding that the accident 5 VS,j IVIACMA_235_2019 „ nd occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2 respondent/driver without there being any acceptable evidence on i record. He further contended that it is the deceased who did not follow the traffic rules by crossing the bus in a jig jag manner and fell on the ground in a drunken condition and that there is no wrong on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and attributed negligence on the part of the deceased also. He further argued that the petitioners failed to produce any document to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. Hence prayed to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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.7,20,000/- is excessive or on reasonable basis. It is the evidence of P.W.3 - eye witness to the incident that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 14. 6 VS,J MACMA_235 2019 bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0053. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that the deceased was in drunken condition at the time of accident. However, on a perusal of the entire record, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents that the deceased was drunk at the time of incident. In support of their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 relief upon Exs.M to A4 which are FIR, inquest report, postmortem certificate and charge sheet respectively, which clearly indicate that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident. As such, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the husband of the petitioner (deceased) died in a road accident on 06.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the 2^^ 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 deceased used to play drama of Sri Veera Bramhendra Swamy life history and for each drama/play, the group used to charge Rs.20,000/- to Rs25,000/- and used to share equally amongst the members. Taking into consideration the same, the Tribunal below fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which amounts to Rs.60,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident, additionally, the 7 VS,j MACMA 235 2019 Tribunal has added 25% of his earnings towards future prospects which amounted to Rs.75,000/- per annum. After applying the legal principle laid down in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,\ one-third of his yearly income was deducted towards his personal expenses which computes to Rs.50,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of ‘13’, the total loss of earning was assessed as Rs.6,50,000/- [Rs.50,000/- X 13]. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of funeral and transport expenses. Altogether, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- [Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-]. 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 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. no '2009 ACJ 1295 SC 8 VS,J MACMA 235 2019 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 charge sheet, the negligence was attributed towards the driver of the offending bus. 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.” f 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. 9 VS,j MACMA_235_2019 , 20. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 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. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao(SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] Sri D Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. OneCCto 4. The Section Officer, Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 5. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.235 of 2019 r' % I 2 3 JUL 2D25 m toh ^ Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010100032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.235 of 2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Badvel Depot), Rep. by its Regional Manager, RMO Officer, RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa City, YSR District. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Kale Adilakshumma, W/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana, Hindu, Housewife, aged about 43 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 2. Kale Raja, S/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana Hindu, Driver, aged about 28 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 3. Kale Sekhar, S/o.Late Chinna Ramanaiah @ Chinna Venkata Ramana Hindu, Student, aged about 24 years, R/o. Chennampalle Village and Post, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. G V S Rayudu, S/o.Subbanna, aged about 55 years, Driver of APSRTC Bus, Badvel Depot, R/o. Badvel Town and Mandal, YSR District. ♦ I (R-4 not necessary in this MAGMA) ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11-12-2018 in MVOP No.516/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao(SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri D Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Two CD Copies 2. TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 DECREE MACMA No.235 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS