APHC010198542022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 175/2022 Between: 1. TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (PRIOR TO BIFURCATION KNOWN AS ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD) 2. THE MANAGER,, TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KORUTLA DEPOT,KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. KANJULA SRUJANA, , W/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. KANJULA SATWIK REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, R/O. KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. KANJULA VARSHINI, D/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/ O. KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, FIRST PETITIONER, KANJULA SRUJANA) 4. KANJULA SUNDARA RAMI REDDY, S/O. BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. KANJULA BUSEMMA, W/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/ O. KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. JAPA GANGADHAR, S/O. LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. KORUTLA TOWN, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 15Z/0188). (R 6 IS NOT NECESSARY). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe above named appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No 386/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judgeat Ongole, Prakasam District for the following among other 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 condone the delay of 921 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. and pass IA NO: 2 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 all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum-Principal District, Judge at Ongole, Prakasam District and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VARUN SHYAM KUMAR 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (prior to bifurcation know as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad) filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 24.06.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Ongole, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Kunjula Gangireddy in a motor accident that occurred on 26.05.2014. 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: a) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is son, the 3rd petitioner is the daughter, the 4th petitioner is the father and the 5th petitioner is the mother of deceased Kunjula Gangireddy. b) On 26.05.2014, in the morning, while the deceased was proceeding towards Ongole Bus Stand side on his motorcycle, when he reached near Chakaliveedhi turning, Kanigiri Town at about 6.00 a.m., the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 15Z/0188, which was coming from Podili side in the opposite direction, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 speed and without blowing horn and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal head injuries and went into coma. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kanigiri, for first aid. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sangamitra Hospital, Ongole, for better treatment and later to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri. On 20.07.2014, the deceased was again shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai, for further treatment. However, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 25.07.2014. Initially, a case was registered under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and later altered to Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the RTC bus. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing milk business. On account of the death of the deceased, the family lost his earnings besides his love and affection. It is further contended that they spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medicines, rent, transport and other expenses. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves, as they were the dependant of the deceased. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondents Nos.1 to 3, the driver of the offending vehicle, the Manager and the Managing Director of APSRTC, respectively. 05. The 1st respondent, the driver of the APSRTC bus, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 06. The 3rd respondent-Managing Director of APSRTC filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd respondent by filing memo. They denied all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that the accident was never occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent-the driver of the RTC bus and that it was solely due to the negligent driving of the deceased himself. On the date of the accident, while the 1st respondent was proceeding slowly towards RTC bus stand, Kanigiri and when the bus reached near Chakaliveedhi cross road, it was raining and the deceased came from the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the RTC bus. It was further contended that the petitioners failed to show the insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased. Hence, the petition was bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the motorcycle as a necessary party and the amount claimed was highly excessive. They also contended that the petitioners have to prove that the accident occurred in the manner stated by them and also prove the age and income of the deceased. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased Kanjula Gangi Reddy died in a road accident occurred on 26.05.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 15 Z/0188 by respondent No.1 or was there any negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle on which the petitioner was travelling as a rider at the time of accident? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP27AH/1403? 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against which of the respondents? 4. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within three months from the date of the award. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with entire costs and proportionate interest and was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- while the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners were awarded an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- each with proportionate interest and the said amounts were directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. The 4th and 5th petitioners were awarded an amount f Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest and were permitted to withdraw the entire amount at once. 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred the present appeal, contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. It is further contended that the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and fell down on the road; thus, the accident occurred due to his own negligence, and he contributed to the same. It is also contended that there was non-joinder of necessary and proper parties i.e., the owner and insurer of the motorcycle and therefore, the O.P. was not maintainable. It is further contended that, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, the Tribunal erroneously considered the same and awarded excessive compensation under various heads. Therefore, the appellants prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein 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. To prove that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the RTC driver, the claimants got examined PW2, who is an eye-witness to the said accident and testified that on the date of accident at about 6.00 a.m., 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 while he was proceeding to Ongole bus stand side, he noticed that the deceased was also coming on his motorcycle. At that time, the bus which was coming from Podili to Kanigiri, driven by the 1st respondent at high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. His evidence clearly establishes that the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Ex.A1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A5- certified copy of charge sheet also support the said version. Though respondent No.1-driver of the APSRTC bus was examined as R.W.1 and deposed that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, the fact remains that he did not file written statement. Even otherwise, the self-serving statement of the driver cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus only. The finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners contended that the deceased was doing milk business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, P.W.2, who was the milk- selling boy working under the deceased, and PW4, the Sales Manager of Amrutha Agro Farms Private Limited, Proddatur, were examined. P.W.4 deposed that he issued Ex.A9/ledger account of the deceased with Amrutha 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 Agro Farms Private Limited and Ex.A10/identity card issued by the Amrutha Agro Farms, certifying that the deceased was doing milk business and earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. Thus, the evidence on record would establish that the deceased was doing milk business. However, as there was no sufficient material on record to show that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is proper and needs no interference. As the deceased was self-employed, 40% of his income i.e., Rs.3,000/- (Rs.7,500 + 40%) was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby his annual income was calculated as Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.10,500/- x 12). Since the dependents are five, after deducting 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 28 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings at Rs.16,06,500/- (1,26,000/- - 1/4th X 17). Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra) the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.38,896/- towards medical 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.175 of 2022 expenses incurred by the petitioners as supported by Exs.A6 and A7 (medical bills), Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of clothing and transport charges, totaling Rs.18,00,396/-, which was rounded off to Rs.18,00,000/-. The Tribunal, following the above decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.02.2026 KGR