APHC010169082023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 181/2023 Between: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT NOW AT PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUS STATION VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. CHADALA RAJAKUMARI, W/O LATE KRISHNA BABU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF LODODDI VILLAGE, RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. CHADALA LAXMI NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O LATE KRISHNA BABU AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF LODODDI VILLAGE, RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. CHADALA TANISH KUMAR KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE KRISHNA BABU AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LODODDI.VILLAGE, RAJAVOMMANGI, MANDAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. CHADALA BUCHAMMA, W/O LATE REDDINA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF LODODDI VILLAGE, RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ARID NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT CHADALA RAJAKUMARI 5. SUNKARA SURYANARAYANA, S/O RAMUDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-28Z-2371, 2 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 RESIDENT OF JAGGAMPETA VILLAGE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (5TH RESPONDENT NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Chairman. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-101h Additional District .2 Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, passed in M.V.O. P.No. 867/2017 dated 18.11.2022,and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, passed in MVO P.No. 867/2017 dated 18.11.2022, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 pleased to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, passed in M.V.O.P.No. 867/2017 dated 18.11.2022,pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P L RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the APSRTC, challenging the order and decree 18.11.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.867 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,33,500/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs thirty three thousand five hundred only) to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, on account of the death of the deceased, Chadala Krishna Babu, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.10.2015. Though the claimants had originally filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal, applying the principle of just compensation, awarded a total sum of Rs.14,33,500/-. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a) On 27.10.2015 at about 2.00 p.m., the injured G.Venkata Ramana, along with the deceased Chadala Krishna Babu, was proceeding on a motorcycle towards Lododdi, on the left side of the road margin, observing all traffic precautions. When they reached near Vykuntapuram Village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2371, drive by the 1st respondent, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, lost control, and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, 4 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 Addateegala, where he succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.25 of 2015 under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus by Jaddangi Police Station. b) It was contended by the petitioners that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income, love and affection, and the 1st petitioner lost consortium. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a written statement denying the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who was allegedly in a drunken condition and riding the motorcycle in a zig-zag manner. It was further contended that the deceased violated traffic rules and dashed against the bus, and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also disputed, and the compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased namely Chedala Krishnababu, died due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus bearing NO.AP 28 Z 2371? 5 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “….the petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.14,33,500/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the said amount by respondent 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and are directed to deposit the said compensation amount into the Court within one month from the date of this award. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner being widow of deceased is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.9,33,500/- and out of the said amount, the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and the balance amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. the second and 3rd petitioners are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees two lakhs each) and said amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and they with draw the amount after they attains majority. The 4th petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the said amount the 4th petitioner is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the remaining balance amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.” 6 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was allegedly in a drunken condition, and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the appellant. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. To prove the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1/driver, the petitioners relied upon the evidence of PW2/Gomu Venkata Ramana, who was traveling along with the deceased on the motorcycle. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 who was an eye- witness to the accident and the best person to speak about the manner of accident. His evidence clearly establishes that the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The appellant/Corporation failed to examine any witness or produce any evidence to rebut the said testimony. Further, Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A5/charge sheet disclose that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus and after investigation a charge sheet was filed attributing negligence on 7 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 him. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus is justified and requires no interference. 13. So far as the contention of the appellant that the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a drunken condition and lost control over the vehicle is concerned, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said plea. However, Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A5/charge sheet clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 14. Under similar circumstances, while considering the issue relating to driving under the influence of alcohol, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd. (SLP (Civil) No.l12489 of 2020, dated 12.04.2021), held as follows: “4. The only question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the driver of the vehicle was under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs at the time the vehicle met with an accident and got extensively damaged. Though it has come on record that the driver of the vehicle had taken some liquor before he drove the vehicle, the said record being available in the form of statement of a policeman who stated that the smell of the liquor was coming from the mouth of the driver, there is no absolutely no evidence to prove the quantity of liquor which he had consumed before driving the vehicle. Admittedly, no medical examination of the driver was got conducted in order to ascertain the quantity of the alcohol in his blood at the time the vehicle met with an accident. In terms of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person is liable to punishment if he is found while driving, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per hundred ml of blood and the level of alcohol is 8 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 required to be verified by way of test done by use of a breath synthesizer. Admittedly, no such test was conducted and, therefore, no evidence was available before the State Commissioner or even to the insurer to prove that the driver had alcohol exceeding 30 mg per hundred ml of the blood, at the time the vehicle met with an accident. Therefore, the insurer has failed to prove that the insured had committed a breach of the terms of the policy, the driver being under influenced of liquor.” 15. In the present case also, no such scientific test was conducted to establish that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol beyond the permissible limits. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove its contention. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted, and the appellant is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed Ex.A7/bank pass book and Ex.A8-Salary Certificate of the deceased. The said document would show that the deceased worked as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department since 2012 and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8,912/-. To prove the contents of Ex.A8-Salary Certificate, the Section Officer, Yeleswaram Range was examined as P.W.3 and in his evidence, he confirmed the issuance of Ex.A8-Salary Certificate and its contents. Thus, considering Ex.A8/salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased was taken at Rs.8,912/- i.e., Rs.1,06,944/- (Rs.8,912 X 12) per annum, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma 9 VS,J MACMA No.181 of 2023 v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, upon deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, his contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.80,208/-/- per annum, (Rs.1,06,944 – ¼)). By applying the relevant multiplier of „17‟ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 26 years, as recorded in Exs.A3/Postmortem Certificate, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.13,63,536/- (Rs.80,208/- X 17), which was rounded off to Rs.13,63,500/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded under conventional heads, i.e., Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate are just and proper. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,33,500/- to the petitioners. Though the claim was restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal rightly awarded higher compensation by applying the principle of just compensation, as laid down in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and other2. This Court finds that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2003 ACJ 12