1 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010155132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. AKULA SUJATHA, W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA AGED 31 YEARS, D.NO. 6-25/2, CHOPPELA VILLAGE, ALAMURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. AKULA NAVYA SRI SATYA, D/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR. BEING MINOR, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1 HEREIN. 3. AKULA LEELA BHAVANI, D/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR. MINOR, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1 HEREIN. 4. AKULA VEERRAJU, S/O LATE SATYAM, AGED 66 YEARS, D.NO. 6- 25/2, CHOPPELA VILLAGE, ALAMURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. AKULA SATYAVATHI, W/O VEERRAJU, AGED 59 YEARS, D.NO. 6-25/2, CHOPPELA VILLAGE, ALAMURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. 6. B V SRINIVASULU, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, D.NO. 2-31-13, RTC COMPLEX ROAD, OPP. KOKILA CENTER, BHANUGUDI, KAKINADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant – 2nd Respondent i.e., the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC) challenging the Order/ Award and Decree dated 26.11.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, awarding compensation of Rs.13,26,600/- as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before theTribunal. 2. The brief averments of the petition in MVOP No.84 of 2016 are that – the 1st petitioner being wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners being children, 4th and 5th petitioners being parents, of the deceased Satyanarayana, filed MVOP No.84 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 514 of A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, together with interest and costs. 4 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. i. The deceased Akula Satyanarayana aged 34 years, was working as a Cleaner in the Van bearing No. AP07 X 3690 and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as salary and contributing the same to the welfare of petitioners. All the petitioners are dependents on the deceased. ii. On 26.07.2015, the deceased – A.Satyanarayana and the driver of van bearing No.AP07 X 3690 went to Sri Lakshmi Narayana Nursery, Kadyapulanka for unloading by parking the said van at road margin, at about 10.30 A.M., the respondent being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28 Z 3611 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, at high speed and dashed the van bearing No.AP07 X 3690 from behind. At that time, the deceased was sitting in the cabin of the van, as a result of hit, the van turned turtle along with the deceased, and the deceased received grievous injuries on his head, neck and fell unconscious. Again the bus turned to right side and dashed middle divider of NH-16 road. As a result, some others also received injuries in the said accident. The deceased was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Apex Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 29.07.2015. iii. 1st respondent, being driver of offending APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28 Z 3611, was having valid driving license, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the APSRTSC bus and employer of 1st respondent. There exists master and servant 5 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. relationship between 1st respondent and 2nd respondent. Hence, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1 and that the van was not kept in the parking place allotted by his concerned department, that the accident was occurred by mechanical defects and damaged tyres of the offending vehicle and for want of proper checking of the said vehicle, that there is no proper condition of offending vehicle at the time of accident and the concerned APSRTC and RTO did not issue any report in respect of damage of the said bus, immediately, to the police or concerned department. 4. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that the bus bearing No. AP28 Z 3611 of Razole Depot was plying between Rajahmundry and Razole, 1st respondent was driving the bus slowly and cautiously. On 26.07.2015, at about 10.30 hours, while the bus was proceeding towards Razole and reached Kadiyapulanka center, one Eicher van was coming in the opposite direction on wrong side, suddenly swerved the Eicher Van to its right in a rash and negligent manner and in order to avoid the collision, 1st respondent swerved the bus, due to which the bus skidded for a distance of 60 feet and dashed the traffic divider and the left front tyre got burst. There was no rashness or negligence on the part of 1st respondent. 6 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. 5. Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No. AP28 Z 3611 driven by the 1st respondent and caused the accident in question? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of enquiry, 1st petitioner herself got examined as P.W.1, and got examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.66 of 2018 of Jaggampet police station, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of postmortem report, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.A.5 – attested copy of Charge sheet. 1st Respondent himself got examined as R.W.1. None were examined on behalf of 2nd respondent. No documents marked on behalf of Respondents. 7. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 7 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. APSRTC bus. Further, the Tribunal, awarded compensation of Rs.13,26,600/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, directing Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs to the petitioners within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of certified copy. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decreetal Order, the APSRTC preferred present appeal, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that Van was coming in the wrong direction and in a rash and negligent manner, on noticing that bus was coming in the said road, the Eicher van driver swerved the van to its right and caused the accident, that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the employer was not examined and there was no proof filed to show that deceased was a cleaner and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, hence, in the absence of any income proof, as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case, Rs.3,000/- notional income is to be taken into consideration for future prospects, instead of Rs.6,000/- per month and that the driver and insurer of the Van are necessary and proper parties and hence, prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT: To prove the accident, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. She also got examined P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the said accident, who categorically stated that the deceased while working as a cleaner in Van bearing No.AP 07X 3690 on 26.07.2015, he along with driver of the van went to Sri Lakshmi Narayana Nursery, Kadiyapulanka for the purpose of unloading the plants and at about 10.30 a.m., their van was parked at the said place on the road margin while the deceased was sitting in the cabin of the said van. In the meanwhile, APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28Z 3611 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn at high speed came and dashed the van from behind, as a result of which, the van turned turtle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and fell unconscious. The offending vehicle APSRTC bearing registration No.AP28 Z 3611 after hitting the van bearing No.AP 07 X 3690 went ahead and dashed middle divider of NH-16 road resulting injuries to the inmates of the bus. Immediately, after the accident, the injured Satyanarayana was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Apex Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 29.07.2015. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled 9 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. with Ex.A.1 F.I.R., Ex.A.2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 copy of postmortem certificate, the Tribunal held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. 12. Coming to the quantum of the compensation payable to the claimants, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was aged about 34 years as on the date of the accident, which is supported by Ex.A.2 – inquest report, Ex.A.3 – Postmortem repot and that the deceased was working as Cleaner in the van bearing No.AP 07X 3690 and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 13. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. As the age of the deceased is 34 years as on the date of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”. After adding 40%, monthly income of the deceased would come to (Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400) Rs.8,400/-. As there are 5 dependents in the present case, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.8,400 – Rs.2,100/-). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.75,600/- 1 2018 ACJ 2782 10 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. (Rs.6,300 X 12). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. „16‟ for the age group of 31 to 35 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.75,600 X 16) Rs.12,09,600/-. 14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.75,000/- towards Medical bills. In total, the respondents - claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.13,26,600/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased, which needs no interference. 15. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 03.02.2026. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA NO.140 / 2022 VS,J. 239 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140/2022 DATED 03.02.2026 KS