APHC010099962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE! TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.243 of 2019 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Trasport Corporation, Rep by its Regional Manager, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. (Owner of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0146) ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Panasabotia Ramalakshmamma, W/o.P.Anjineyulu, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5- 326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. 2. Panasabotia Eswaramma Mankamuthi Eswaramma D/o.P.Anjineyulu, W/o.Nagabushana, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326 B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. 3. Panasabotia Radha Mallela Radha, D/o.P.Anjineyulu, W/o.Venkatesu, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. 4. Panasabotia Nagamani @ Dhandagala Nagamani, D/o.P.Anjineulu, W/o.Rajanna, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. ...Respondents/Claimants 5. Kimavath Narayana Swamy Naik, S/o.Bale Naik, Major, Hindu, Driver of RTC, R/o.Siddaiah Gutta, Dharmavaram Town, Ananthapuram District. (Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0146) (R-5 is not necessary in this MAGMA) ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2019 in M.V.O.P No.276 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram 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 S Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the order and decree dated 09.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.276 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuramu be and is hereby confirmed. 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTR/UR //TRUE COPY// SE^ON OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 2. Two CD Copies TK k- . —J HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 DECREE MACMA No.243 of 2019 AUG 2025 )|) ^Vci!nwtS«cljaiX,>' DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I APHC010099962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.243 of 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09,01.2019 in M.V.O.P No.276 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Trasport Corporation, Rep by its Regional Manager, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. (Owner of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0146) ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Panasabotia Ramalakshmamma, W/o.P.Anjineyulu, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5- 326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. 2. Panasabotia Eswaramma Mankamuthi Eswaramma D/o.P.Anjineyulu, W/o.Nagabushana, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. 3. Panasabotia Radha Mallela Radha, D/o.P.Anjineyulu, W/o.Venkatesu, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, u R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram Now, District. 4. Panasabotla Nagamani @ Dhandagala Nagamani, D/o.P.Anjineulu, W/o.Rajanna, Hindu, R/o.D.No 5-326, B.C.Colony, Kothacheruvu, Now, R/o.Parthasarthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Anantapuram District. .. .Respondents/Claimants 5. Kimavath Narayana Swamy Naik, S/o.Bale Naik, Major, Hindu, Driver of RTC, R/o.Siddaiah Gutta, Dharmavaram Town, Ananthapuram District. (Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02Z0146) (R-5 is not necessary in this MAGMA) ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 of 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 M.V.O.P No.276 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. : Sri Aravala Rama Rao(SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri S Krishna Reddy The Court made the following order: APHC010099962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) lU [3333] j;.' FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.NO: 243 of 2019 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD, TRASPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANGER, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.P RAMALAKSHMAMMA, D.NO 5-326, B.C.COLONY, KOTHACHERUVU, NOW, R/O.PARTHASARTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. D.NO 5-326 NOW ESWARAMMA KOTHACHERUVU R/O.PARTHASARTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN 2.PANASABOTLA B.C.COLONY, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3.PANASABOTLA RADHA MALLELA RADHA, D.NO 5-326, NOW, R/O.PARTHASARTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. KOTHACHERUVU, B.C.COLONY, 4. PANASABOTLA NAGAMANI, D.NO 5-326, B.C.COLONY, KOTHACHERUVU, NOW, R/O.PARTHASARTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 5.KIMAVATH NARAYANA SWAMY NAIK, R/0. SIDDAIAH GUTTA, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal before this honble court being aggrieved by the judgment adn decree dated 01.01.2019 in M.V.O.P No 276/2016 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum District Judge, Ananthapuram Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: 4 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M A.C.M.A.No.243 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal assailing the order and decree dated 09.01.2019 passed in i\/l.V.O.P.No.276 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuramu, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,14,500/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of Panasabotia Anjineyulu in a motor accident that occurred on 20.05.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. The claimants, who are wife and daughters of the deceased, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Panasabotia Anjineyulu in a motor accident that occurred on 20.05.2016. On the date of the incident, the said Anjineyulu was proceeding on TVS moped bearing No.AP-02-AD- 8497 in Puttaparthy town slowly on the extreme left side of the road margin and when he reached near Ramalayam temple, the respondent-driver drove the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-02- Z-0146 of the 2'"'^ respondent Corporation in a rash and negligent at high speed and lost its control and dashed against the TVS moped of the deceased, as a result of which, he received fatal injuries. He was immediately shifted to Satya Sai Hospital, Puttaparthy and from there to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.41 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under Section 304A I PC by the Puttaparthy Urban Police Station. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 54 years, hale and healthy and was working Expert Mason, besides doing contract works and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition. St 1 manner as having entered St respondent-driver 3. While the 1 nd did not choose to file written statement, the 2 appearance respondent Corporation filed its written statement, resisting the claim petition by contending that the deceased was proceeding his moped in front of the bus in a rash and negligent manner in a jig jag manner and all of a sudden he crossed from left side to right side without any precautions and without giving any signal, and due to his rashness and negligence, the accident occurred on 4 and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent driver. They further contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not having valid driving licence and he was not able to ride his moped and lost his control. The 2'^'^ respondent of the deceased and his disputed the age and earnings relationship with the petitioners. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the 4. following issues for trial. 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 20.05.2016 had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0146 by first respondent and whether the deceased Panasabotia Anjineyulu died due to the said accident? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-corporation, RW.1 was examined and documents were marked on their behalf. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 and A.4, came to no 6. the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus at a high speed and caused the death of the deceased Anjineyulu. Further, considering the fact that there was no cogent evidence in proof of the exact age and income of the deceased except self-serving testimony of PW.1, the Tribunal, fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years as per the recitals in Ex.A.3-Post-mortem report. Further, having considered the fact that there was no proof of avocation of the deceased and taking into account the testimony of PW.1-the wife of the deceased, that on the date of accident the deceased came down to Puttaparthy to attend coolie work, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a coolie by profession and fixed his notional income at Rs.60,000/- per annum. Further, following the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050) and in Hem Raj V. Oriental insurance Company Ltd., and others (2018 ACJ 5) in respect of future prospects where the deceased self-employed or on fixed salary between 50 to 55 years of age, and also where the income of the deceased was nationally taken on guess work, there shall be an addition of 10% in his income towards future prospects, the Tribunal, takipg into account the was of the deceased at Rs.66,000/- per annum, by duly earnings adding 10% which comes to Rs.6,000/- towards future prospects, of the amount towards The Tribunal, after deducting 1/4 personal expenses of the deceased, assessed his contribution to the family at Rs.49,500/-. As per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the Tribunal applied the multiplier “11” for the aged of the deceased at 55 years and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,44,500/- (Rs.49,500/- X 11 = Rs.5,44,500/-) apart from awarding Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1®* expenses, petitioner and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,14,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Assailing the said award of compensation, the present appeal came to be filed. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant-corporation and Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the Tribunal erroneously relied 7. 8. on the recitals of Ex.A.3- the age of the deceased account the age of the deceased Ex.A.2-inquest report. Further postmortem certificate for determining as 55 years, instead of taking as 75 years mentioned i into in without there being any evidence as Mason work, the in proof of avocation of the deceased Tribunal erroneously taken his notional income as Rs.60,000/- per annum and added 10% of the income towards future prospects which is not tenable. 9- Having regard to the facts and ci and the submissions of the learned from the award under the Tribunal that the negligent driving of the driver speed, on account of which the death was caused, has become final and absence of substantial Corporation, even though they pleaded the part of the deceased. circumstances of the case standing counsel, as seen appeal, this court found that the finding accident occurred due to the of rash and of the offending bus at a high of the deceased Anjenuyul needs no interference in the u material on the part of the appellant about the negligence on 10. Learned standing counsel for the the award on two erroneously taken into appellant mainly assailed one is that the Tribunal account the age ^ the deceased as 55 grounds, the first years as mentioned in Ex.A.S-postmortem certificate, contrary to the age mentioned in Ex.A.2-inquest report as 75 years; and the other ground is that without there being any evidence in proof of avocation of the deceased as Mason work, the Tribunal erroneously taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- per annum and added 10% of the income towards future prospects. 11. Coming to the question of age of the deceased, as seen from the impugned award, it appears that in Ex.A.2-lnquest Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 75 years, whereas in Ex.A.3-Post mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 55 years. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 55 years. However, in the absence of positive evidence available on record with regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal, taking into account the recitals in Ex.A.S-postmortem certificate, considered the age of the deceased as 55 years at the relevant time of his death. However, in this respect, it may be relevant to refer a judgment of this Court in M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Khairunnisa Khairunbee and others\ wherein this court has considered the age of the deceased mentioned in Ex.A.3-Post Mortem certificate, in the absence of substantive material in respect of age of the deceased therein. In the instant case also, except Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.3-post mortem certificate. there was no other documentary evidence to prove the age of the deceased, and that circumstances, the Tribunal, of course, might have relied on Ex.A.3-Post Mortem Certificate, and thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or error in considering the age of the deceased as per Ex.A.3-Post mortem certificate accordingly, the finding given by the Tribunal in that respect cannot be found fault with and needs no interference. and 12. In so far as the avocation of the deceased as Mason work is concerned, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the Tribunal erroneously considered the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.60,000/- per annum with the addition of 10% of his income towards future prospects. As seen from the award, it appears that except the self-serving statement of PW.I-the wife of the deceased, no other material was placed on record in proof of avocation of the 2023 (5) ALT 776 = 2023 Supreme (AP) 723 deceased. However, according to the contents of Ex.A.1-FiR, it is the statement of PW.1 that on the date of the incident, the deceased came down to Puttaparthy to attend coolie work. But, considering the deceased as a coolie by profession, in the absence of positive evidence in proof of avocation and the of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the income of earnings the deceased nationally at Rs.60,000/- per annum and added 10% of the income towards future prospects as per the ratio laid down in Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others (2018 ACJ 5). The said conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of taking the income of the deceased nationally are well justified and are in tune with the beneficial legislation of the Motor Vehicles and this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award calling for interference of this court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 09.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.276 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapuramu. There shall be no order as to costs. - *> As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if pending shall stand closed. any, Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge Ananthapuram.Ananthapuram District, (with records if any) ® ' 3 One rr tn f APSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK nm HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.243 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITH OUT COSTS