APHC010112292021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 164 OF 2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, represented by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram Bus Depot, Vizianagaram District. 2. The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Amaravthi, Vijayawada, Andhrapradesh ...Petitioners AND 1. Bantupalli Yernaidu, son of late Pydithalli, Hindu, Aged 44 years, Gantyada Village and Mandalam, Vizianagaram District. 2. Bantupalli Ramanamma, wife of Yernaidu, Hindu aged 40 years, GantyadaVillage and Mandalam, Vizianagaram District. 3. Kotla Narayana Swamy, son of Venkata Rao, Hindu, 38 years, r/o Kapu Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram, driver of A.P.S.R.T.C, bus bearing No. AP 30 Z 0054. Employee Staff No. 459720. (3'd Respondent is driver of APSRTC not necessary party) ...Respondents 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 order and decree dated 13/12/2019 passed in MVOP.No.334 of 2018 2 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram FAC. the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 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 to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.334 of 2018 dated 13.12.2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — cum- I Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram FAC. the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal —cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRINIVAS PRASAD K, K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondents: G SAI NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram FAC. the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs and Thirty Two thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.14,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Bantupalli Krishna in a motor accident. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The 1st petitioner is the father and 2nd petitioner is the mother of the deceased Bantupalli Krishna. On 25.09.2017 the deceased/Bantupalli Krishna proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP35-M-3042 to go to SVN Lake Palace of Vizianagaram Town to attend duty reached near RTC complex in gate, Vizianagaram and slowed his motorcycle due to stones covered with repairing cement road at the in-gate, at that time, the 1st respondent driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP30-Z-0054 drove it, in same direction in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn entered into the main gate of RTC 4 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 complex, Vizianagaram and dashed the backside of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and the bus front tyre ran over on the stomach of the deceased and dragged to some distance. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to District Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, where, the medical officer declared that the deceased died. On the report, the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram Traffic Police Station registered a case in Crime No.290 of 2017 against the 1st respondent/driver. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased used to work as an employee in SVN Lake Palace, Vizianagaram and he used to get salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and on account of death of the deceased, their family lost his earnings besides his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- from respondents No.1 to 3, the driver and APSRTC of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte. 06. Respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC filed a written statement, stating that there is no truth in the petition and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the service driver of the corporation in driving the vehicle and the alleged injuries are caused to the deceased due to his own negligence, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation against this respondent and all the records filed by the petitioners are not genuine and foisted for the purpose of their claim only. Further, the service driver, conductor and other passengers stated that there is no negligence on the part of the service driver and on that 5 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 day on 25.09.2017, the service driver of bus bearing No.AP30-Z-0054, while proceeding in a careful manner and trying to enter into the APSRTC complex, through its in-gate, at the same time the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle at about 6.00 pm, with rash and negligent manner and without observing the signals of the bus had hit the heap of road material stones and fallen down on the road and sustained injuries. The 1st respondent applied breaks and stopped the bus. The deceased sustained injuries due to his own negligence and there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, as such, there is no liability on the part of respondent to pay compensation to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP30-Z-0054 or due to rash or negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP35-M-3042 or both of them contributed to the accident and causing death of the deceased Bantupalli Krishna? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount and which respondents are liable to pay compensation amount? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence adduced. 6 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- with costs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the petitioners, against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from the date of order of this court, on such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and petitioner No.2 is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- immediately. The remaining balance amount of 2nd petitioner shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two (02) years, on such maturity, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to receive the same. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that evidently at the time of accident the driver of the bus was proceeding very slowly and trying to enter into the APSRTC complex through its in gate at the same time deceased as proceeding on his motor bike with rash and negligent manner and hit the hip of the road and sustained injuries therefore there is no negligence on the part of the RTC driver. The accident was taken place due to the contributory negligence of the deceased therefore accident took place. Therefore, RTC is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 9% interest is highly excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of the incident. The Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and Tribunal also erred in calculating the actual salary of the deceased. The 9% interest awarded by the tribunal is also highly excessive and not in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, the claimants got examined PWs 1 and 2. PW1 is father of the deceased who deposed with regard to the nature of the accident and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. 15. In support of their case, the claimants got examined PW2, who is eyewitness to the incident and admittedly is the owner cum driver of the auto, who deposed that at the time of accident, he dropped the passengers and kept his auto at bus stand and he admitted that a heap of stone metal was there at the in-gate of the bus stand because of some canal construction and 8 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 his auto was stopped at a distance of ten yards from the place of accident and rushed to the place of offence immediately after the accident as per Ex.A5 attested copy of charge sheet. Thus, answered issue No.1 in favour of claimants holding that respondent No.1 is responsible for the accident. 16. Coming to the dependents, it can be safely held that PWs 1 & 2 are the father and mother of deceased and they are entitled for the compensation as held by the tribunal. 17. Now, with regard to income of the deceased, there is no dispute about the age of the deceased as 25 years. The petitioner has not placed any material to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary proof about his income, the Tribunal determined notionally as Rs.5,200/- per month. As the deceased is unmarried and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are dependants on the deceased, 50% from income is deducted for personal and living expenses which would come to Rs.2,600/- (Rs.5,200/- / 50%). As the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of ‘18’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd1. Annual income of the deceased after applying the multiplier would be Rs.5,61,600/- (Rs.2,600/- x 12 x 18). In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA.No.164 of 2022 expenses and Rs.1,40,400/- towards future prospectus, totaling Rs.8,32,000/-. Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded 1 Annual income of the deceased after applying the multiplier Rs.5,61,600/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 5 Future prospectus Rs.1,40,400/- Total: Rs.8,32,000/- 18. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference necessitates to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects and as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. 19. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 PBS