1 APHC010193792022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179/2022 Between: 1. THE A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. (NOW AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT) (OWNER OF BUS NO. AP 28 Z 4006). ...APPELLANT AND 1. NIMMAKAYALA VENKATESWARLU, SON OF LATE MURALI, AGED 27 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 3-82, K. BITRAGUNTA VILLAGE, ZARUGUMALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. NIMMAKAYALA SRINIVASULU, SON OF LATE MURALI, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDENTOF D.NO. 3-82, K. BITRAGUNTA VILLAGE, ZARUGUMALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. PAKAM BUJJAIAH, SON OF VENKATA RAMANAIAH, HINDU, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF JENDA CHETTU CENTER, KAVALI TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP28Z 4006) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALA FOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, dated 09.12.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.119 of 2015, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC) on the point of liability as well as quantum. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under – the Respondents No.1 and 2 herein being Petitioners No.1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Sections 166(1)(c) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short M.V Act) 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), with costs and interest, for the death caused to Nimmakayala Seshamma @ Chinna Seshamma, who is mother of Respondents No.1 and 2 in a motor vehicles accident. i. The case of the Respondents/Petitioners is that – on 11.05.2015 in the morning hours the deceased Nimmakayala Seshamma @ Chinna Seshamma boarded an A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing Registration No.AP28 Z 4006 at K.Bitragunta Village to go to Thurupu Naidupalem Village, to attend her regular masonary coolie work and at about 19.15 hours, when the bus stopped on NH-5 Road, near Thurupu Naidupalem bus stop, she tried to get down from the bus and at that time, the 3rd respondent herein being the driver of the offending bus, moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the alighting and due to that act, the deceased fell on the road and sustained head injury and several other bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole in 108 Ambulance. After giving first-aid, she was shifted to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, for better treatment; however, the Doctors at the said Hospital declared her as brought 4 dead. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.85 of 2015 was registered against 3rd respondent herein at Tanguturu police station. ii. It is also the case of the Respondents/Petitioners that the husband of the deceased - Seshamma was predeceased to her, respondents (petitioners) No.1 and 2 are the children of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 44 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and was earning Rs.150/- per day by doing masonry coolie work and as such claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) from the Respondents therein. 3. Respondent No.3 herein being Respondent No.1 therein filed counter denying the averments in the Petition and contended that, when the bus came to the halting point at Thurpu Naidupalem, it was stopped there and that all the passengers got down from the bus and that after receipt of signal from the Conductor, this respondent started the bus in a slow manner and that the deceased while getting down from the bus fell on the road and received injuries, and that there is no rashness or negligence on the part of this respondent and it is the deceased who got down the bus negligently and fell on the road. He further contended that he is working under the employment of 2nd respondent (appellant herein) and that if any compensation is awarded, the 2nd respondent (appellant herein) alone is liable to pay the same. Therefore, the present petition against this respondent is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Respondent No.2 (appellant herein) filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and chiefly contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligent act of deceased only as she alighted the bus negligently. However after the accident the relatives and litigants gathered there and fabricated a false case against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C., bus. The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant, so also the interest claimed is usurious. The Petitioners are majors and living separately and that the deceased 5 herself is depending upon the earnings of the petitioners. Thus, prays for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for trial- 1. Whether the deceased – Nimmakayala Seshamma @ Chinna Seshamma, died in the road accident that took place on 11.05.2015 at 9.15 A.M., on NH-5 near T.Naidupalem Village, Tangutur Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28 Z 4006? 2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the Petitioners No.1 and 2 (Respondents No.1 and 2 herein), 2nd Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one eyewitness to the accident examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 documents. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., in Cr.No.85 of 2015 of Tangutur Police Station. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 is certified copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report, Ex.A.5 is certified copy of rough sketch and Ex.A.6 is certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.149 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class – cum- Special Mobile Court, Ongole. On behalf of Respondents, 1st Respondent (3rd Respondent herein) was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 7. I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Ex.A.1- copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.3 – copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against Respondent No.3 – driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.1, Exs.A.1 and A.3, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to 6 rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.3 being the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. However, with regard to issue No.2, the Court below held that as the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 therein, who is employee of A.P.S.R.T.C., working under Respondent No.2, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the Respondents herein and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees six lakh and sixty thousand) with costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 9. 9. The present appeal has been preferred by the 2nd Respondent i.e., A.P.S.R.T.C., on the grounds that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing Registration No.AP28 Z 4006 without there being any acceptable evidence in the record and also on the ground that the deceased was not permanent employee but a masonary coolie who did not get regular income, in spite of the same, the Tribunal took into consideration her notional income as Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) per month i.e., Rs.150/- (Rupees one fifty only) per day, without any documentary evidence to that extent and applied the multiplier 14 though she is aged about 44 years. 10. Perused the documents filed by the claimants before the Court below as well as the Award passed by the Court below. It can be observed that admittedly issue No.1 was answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellant herein and with regard to quantum the Court below has rightly applied the multiplier of 14 to the age group of 41 – 45 years as per the Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors –Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr reported in (2009) 2 ACJ 1298 and that though no proof of document is filed to show that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day, considering that 7 the deceased was a masonary coolie, the court below came to a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month which is neither illegal nor arbitrary. 11. In view of the same this court do not find any merits to allow this petition. Accordingly, the MACMA is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the MACMA is dismissed, without costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated:19.01.2026 KS 8 70 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179/2022 Dated:19.01.2026 KS