APHC010109342019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 272/2019 Between: 1 . APSRTC, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-37- Z-0088 OF ELURU DEPOT,MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1 . BANDELA LAKSHMIKANTHAM, W/O LATE MARIYA DASU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 3-143, MALLESWARAM H/O SINGARAGUDEM LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 . BANDELA SAMBAIAH, .S/O LATE MARIYA DASU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER R/O D.NO. 3-143, MALLESWARAM H/O SINGARAGUDEM LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3 . BANDELA BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE MARIYA DASU AGED OUT 32 YEARS, R/O D,NO. 3-143, MALLESWARAM H/O INGARAGUDEM LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4 . BANDELA SURI BABU, S/O LATE MARIYA DASU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 3-143, 2 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 MALLESWARAM H/0 SINGARAGUDEM LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5 . ABDUL BASHEER, S/O ABDUL RAZAQ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-37-Z- 0088 KOTHAPALLI STREET, 9TH ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIll Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru passed in M.V.O.P No. 493 OF 2015 dated 29.11.2018 and pass IA 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 condone the delay of 19 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment and Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G. Eluru passed in M.V.O.P. No.793/2015, dated 29.11.2018. IA 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 To grant stay of execution of Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum -VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G. Dist Eluru in M.V.O.P. No.493/2015 dated 29.11.2018 pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant: 1 K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For 3 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 . APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 . ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU The Court made the following: 4 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.272 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. Aggrieved by order dated 29.11.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.493 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, the present appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. For the sake of convenience the parties and referred to as they were referred before Tribunal. 2. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 read with rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization on the account of the death of 1st petitioner’s husband-Bandela Mariya Dasu, in the accident that was occurred on 19.05.2015, in which, the offending A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing Registration No.AP37Z 0088 was involved. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was going on bicycle on the left side of the road, then the offending A.P.R.T.C. Bus driven by the 1st respondent/driver in 5 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result of which, the deceased fell on the road and the bus ran over the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.63 of 2015 under Section 304-A of I.P.C was registered against the respondent No.1/Driver. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased was a coolie and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of the family. On the account of his death, the petitioners preferred the above mentioned petition claiming compensation against the respondents as the respondent No.1 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, which was adopted by the respondent No.1. It was contended by the 2nd respondent that the accident was occurred due to the old age and the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, at the time of accident, who was riding the bicycle in zigzag manner, thereby the accident was occurred. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. With the 6 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 above pleadings, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and examined one N.Lakshmayya as PW.2. Further they have marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on their behalf. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked documentary evidence. The Tribunal after hearing the parties by order under challenge, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.7,22,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard, Ms.Bhavani, counsel representing Sri K.Srinivas Prasad, Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Azad, counsel representing Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Despite, service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent No.5. Perused the record. 8. The counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal without appreciating the contents 7 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents/appellants came to conclusion that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C Bus. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that to substantiate the contention of the appellant, it had neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 who reiterated the contents of the claim petition. Therefore, her evidence is not helpful to decide the said issue. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioners have also examined one Sri N.Lakshmayya as PW2, who was the eye witness to the accident. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 would go to show that he was standing by the side of petrol bunk and found that, the offending A.P.S.R.T.C Bus coming from Eluru, driven by the 1st respondent at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. From the above evidence, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/Driver. Though, PW.2 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, it can be 8 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent No.1/Driver. Hence the contention of the appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 10. The counsel for the appellant would also contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.7,22,000/-, despite the fact that the petitioners have restricted the claim to Rs.5,00,000/-. She also disputed the approach of the Tribunal in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. She would further contend that the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. She also disputes the age of the deceased and contends that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was 55 years old. 11. As can be seen from the record, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the age of the deceased was 50 years as on the date of the accident. In support of their claim, they have got marked copies of First Information Report, Postmortem report, Inquest report and Charge Sheet in Crime No.63 of 2015 on the file of Dharmajigudem PS, which were 9 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 marked as Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A5 respectively. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would show that the age of the deceased was recorded as 50 years. Though, it was vehemently contended by the counsel for the appellant that the age of the deceased was 55 years, nothing is placed on record to prove the same. As already stated, the respondents have filed documentary proof to show that, he was aged about 50 years, as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced. 12. Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the accident was occurred on 19.05.2015. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the deceased was coolie and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Though it is their contention, the Tribunal after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioners, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal in as much as, the same is reasonable. In the circumstances, the income fixed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 10 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 13. A perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal had having considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others1", had awarded compensation of Rs.7,22,000/- under various conventional heads. This Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the approach of Tribunal. 14. It is further contention of the petitioner that the claimants have filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- whereas, the Tribunal had awarded over and above the claim of the petitioners. In this regard, it is to be noted that whenever, an application/petition is filed under beneficial legislation, it is the duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation to the victim/LR’s of the deceased. Merely because, the claim was restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, if the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to, over and above the claim, the Courts shall not hesitate to award just compensation. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramla and others Vs National Insurance Company 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 11 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 Limited”2 had upheld the said principle. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 15. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 12.03.2026 CMK/SSA 2 (2019) 2 SCC 192 12 TCDS,J MACMA.No.272 of 2019 109 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 272/2019 12.03.2026 CMK/SSA