1 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 APHC010001652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 10/2022 Between: 1. M DHANAMMA, W/O LATE M. VENKATAMUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-83, ANNASWAMYPALLI VILLAGE, VENKATAPURAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. M. MUNISEKHAR REDDY, S/O LATE M. VENKATAMUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. DEPENDENT (HANDICAPPED), RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-83, ANNASWAMYPALLI VILLAGE, VENKATAPURAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. K. SIREESHA, D/O LATE M. VENKATAMUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-17, KOTTA NENNUR VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. PARVATHURU PATTABHI, S/O LATE P. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. APSRTC DRIVER, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-1445, N.T.R NAGAR, SRIKALAHASTHI TOWN, POST AND MANDEL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING OFFICE AT RTC CROSS ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STAND (PNBS) COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 27.10.2021 passed in MVOP.No. 08 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge, Tirupati Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING OFFICE AT RTC CROSS ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD-500020, NOW AT VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M DHANAMMA, W/O LATE M.VENKATAMUNI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE.R/O D.NO.3-83, ANNASWAMYPALLI VILLAGE, VENKATAPURAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR AND DISTRICT 2. M MUNISEKHAR REDDY, S/O LATE M.VENKATAMUNI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DEPENDENT.R/O D.NO.3-83, 3 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 ANNASWAMYPALLI VILLAGE, VENKATAPURAM POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR AND DISTRICT 3. K SIREESHA, D/O LATE M.VENKATAMUNI REDDY, W/O K.MUNIKRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29-YEARS,OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-17, KOTTA NENNUR VILLAGE,RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. PARVATHURU PATTABHI, S/O LATE P.GANGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-1445, NTR NAGAR, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 27.10.2021 passed in MVOP No. 08 of 2018 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 08 of 2018 dated. 27.10.2021 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 27.10.2021, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.08 of 2018. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide the issues by way of a common judgment. 2. The claimants filed an application before the tribunal under Section 166 – 1(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 155 and 475 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of one M. Venkatamuni Reddy (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) occurred in an accident on 14.10.2017, at about 08.00 p.m., near Ramana Vilas Circle, Renigunta – Srikalahasti main road. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.16,35,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.10 of 2022 and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited filed M.A.C.M.A.No.93 of 2022. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant Nos.1 to 3 are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the driver of the bus bearing AP-03-Z- 5404 which belongs to the 2nd respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Limited. On the fateful day, at about 08.00 p.m., while the deceased was going from his house to Renigunta on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-CB-1760, near Ramana Vilas circle, opposite to Vishnu Hotel, Renigunta-Srikalahasti main road, a bus bearing AP-03-Z-5404, being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the 5 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries on the back of his head. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Narayanadri hospital, Renigunta and was again shifted to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati, where, on 15.10.2017, at about 07.42 a.m., he succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported to Renigunta Police and a case was registered in Crime No.76 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The 1st respondent – driver of the bus remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed its counter affidavit denying the allegations leveled by the claimants and contended that there was no negligence on the party of the driver of the bus and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased M. Venkatamuni Reddy died due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle APSRTC bus bearing No.AP03-Z- 5404? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, from respondents as claimed in the petition? 3) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) To What relief? 7. During the course of trial, in support of their case, the claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, though the 1st respondent remained exparte, the 2nd respondent got examined the 1st respondent and no documents were marked. 6 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 8. The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and as the vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent, all the respondents were made liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. 9. The Tribunal, after perusing the entire evidence and all the material paper available before it, has awarded an amount of Rs.15,60,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.40,000/- under the head „loss of consortium‟, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- under the head of „loss of love and affection‟. In total, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,35,000/- to the claimants. Challenging the same, the 3rd respondent/insurance company, has filed the present appeal. 10. Heard Sri. C.V.S.S. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimants strenuously contended that though the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs.16,35,000/- considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- erroneously and without awarding compensation towards future prospects. He further requested this Court for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal by considering the proper monthly income of the deceased. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC contends that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the 7 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 claimants failed to establish negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus bearing AP-03-Z-5404. Though the 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1 and deposed that while he was driving the bus slowly on the left side of the road, the deceased came on a motorcycle by talking on a mobile phone and hit the bus, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and held that the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, he requested to set-aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 13. Perused the entire material available on record. During the course of trial, the applicants got examined one D. Ravi (P.W.2) who deposed that on 14.10.2017, while he was standing in front of a hotel named Vishnu Bhavan at about 08.00 p.m., one person was crossing the road on a motor cycle and at that juncture, the bus bearing AP-03-Z- 5404, which is coming from Srikalahasti in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcyclist due to which, the person fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further specifically deposed that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. On behalf of APSRTC, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1who deposed that there is no negligence on his part while driving the bus. The Tribunal, opining that the evidence of P.W.2 inspires confidence and that he is an independent witness and not an interested witness, answered the first issue by holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the APSRTC. 14. Admittedly, P.W.2 is an uninterested witness and the evidence adduced by him with regard to the occurrence of the accident cannot be disbelieved as he was also shown as a witness in charge sheet (Ex.A.6). Whereas, the driver of the bus who was examined as R.W.1 has simply 8 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 denied the allegations leveled but has failed to put forward any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. Thus, this Court finds no wrong in the impugned award with regard to the observation that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Though the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle while talking at the time of accident, no reliable evidence has been placed before this Court in support of the same. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by APSRTC on the aforementioned grounds is liable to be dismissed. 15. Now while dealing with the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, after perusing the material available before it, opined that the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to work as an Assistant under Rayalaseema Rami Reddy Educational Institutions, Tirupati and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; that apart, the deceased has got agricultural lands and used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from the same. In support of such claim, the claimants filed salary certificate dated 04.03.2021 and got examined P.W.4 – son of the Chairman of Ramireddy Rayalaseema Educational Institutions, Tirupati. However, the said piece of evidence was disbelieved by the Tribunal as the claimants failed to provide documents like accounts or pay acquittance register to show that the deceased was paid Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by cultivating a land admeasuring Acs.1.63 cents. With regard to the income of the deceased from cultivating his lands, the Tribunal opined that the claimants would not lose agricultural income as nothing prevents them to lease out the said lands. 9 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 16. Thus, based on the above observations, the Tribunal computed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and as he is aged about 50 years, the applicable multiplier is „13‟ as per Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,1. The Tribunal, under the head of loss of dependency, awarded Rs.15,60,000/- [Rs.10,000/- X 12 X „13‟=15,60,000/-]. In addition to the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head of „loss of consortium‟, Rs.15,000/- towards obsequies expenses and Rs.20,000/- under the head of „love and affection‟. In total, Rs.16,35,000/- was awarded as compensation to the applicants [Rs.15,60,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.20,000/-]. It can be seen that the Tribunal, having observed that the deceased was not a permanent employee, did not include future prospects in the compensation thus awarded. 17. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insruance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi2, while dealing with the future prospects to be awarded to a deceased, held as under: “…(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the 1 2009 ACJ 1295 SC 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 10 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 18. It is clear that in case the deceased was self-employed, 40% of the established income should be added if he/she was aged below 40 years; 25% of the established income should be added if he/she was aged between 40 to 50 years and 10% of the established income should be added if he/she was aged between 50 to 60 years. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident and was earning a fixed income by working in Ramireddy Rayalaseema Educational Institutions, Tirupati. In such a case, the Tribunal ought to have added future prospects while awarding compensation to the applicants, considering the nature of work and age of the deceased. Admittedly, the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Computing future prospects of the deceased as 10% on the annual income and adding the same to annual income, it would become Rs.1,32,000/- [Rs.1,20,000/- + (10% X 1,20,000/-)]. The applicable multiplier as per Sarla Varma is „13‟ and the compensation under the head loss of dependency would become Rs.17,16,000/- [Rs.1,32,000/- X „13‟]. Except the above, the rest of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads „loss of consortium – Rs.40,000/-‟, „funeral expenses – Rs.15,000/-‟ and „loss of love and affection – Rs.20,000/-‟ remains untouched, as the same were awarded on reasonable basis. Thus, the total compensation to be paid to the applicants is enhanced to Rs.17,91,000/- from Rs.16,35,000/-. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.10 of 2022, preferred by the claimants is allowed in part and M.A.C.M.A.No.93 of 2022, preferred by 11 VS,J MACMA_10 & 93_2022 APSRTC, is dismissed. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:20.01.2026. Gss