APHC010229002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 199/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. NUNNA CHAKRAVENI, W/O.LATE CHAKRAM, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.2.181, NEELAYYA THOTA, KARAPA, KARAPA (M) 2. NUNNA DURGAPRASAD, S/O. LATE CHAKRAM, AGED 31 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O.D.NO.2.181, NEELAYYA THOTA, KARAPA, KARAPA (M) 3. NUNNA RAMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O. LATE CHAKRAM, AGED 29 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O.D.NO.2.181, NEELAYYA THOTA, KARAPA, KARAPA (M), 4. KONDEPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, D/O. LATE CHAKRAM, AGED 28 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.2.376/1, GUDALAVARI STREET, CHEEDIGA, KAKINADA RURAL. 5. GOTLA SWAMY, S/O. DURGARAO, AGED 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP 16 Z 0188, GVPT-1 DEPOT. VIJAYAWADA, R/O. D.NO.1.362, CHINA KALLEPALLI (V), GHANTASALA (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Decree and Order dated 25.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.195/2019 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada and consequently dismiss the claim petition and pass such other orders. 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 operation of Decree and Order dated 25.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2019 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass such other orders. 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 to vacate the interim orders granted on 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.1/2022 in MACMA No.199 of 2022 and permit the Petitioners 1 to 4 to withdraw the amount deposited by the 2nd Respondent/Appellant corporation in the Court of MACT- Cum- II Additional District Judge Court, Kakinada and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC Corporation filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 25.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.195 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,37,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Thirty Seven thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Nunna Chakram in a motor accident that occurred on 05.02.2019. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: On 05.02.2019 at 1.15 pm, the deceased/Nunna Chakram along with his father-in-law i.e., Medasani Sesharao went to attend their relatives function on the motorcycle of his father-in-law at Arikerevula and after their return, he is waiting on the road to board auto to reach Karapa and his father-in-law is waiting on TVS XL Moped motorcycle bearing No.AP05-DC-0281 to send him by auto. Meanwhile, at 2.00 pm, 1st respondent who is driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP16-Z-0188 proceeding from Vijayawada to Kakinada, when reached near Green Field School, opposite to the house and shop of 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 Medasani Sesharao, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed against both the deceased and Medasani Sesharao. The deceased died on the spot and later Medasani Sesharao succumbed to the injuries. Basing on the report, Karapa police registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2019 under Section 304(A) IPC. The deceased was aged about 59 years and he was doing agricultural coolie works in and around Karapa and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 04. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. 05. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed written statement/counter, denied all the material allegations in the petition. Further, the deceased was waiting for an auto on the road to reach Karapa and his father-in-law was waiting on TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP05-DC-0281 to send the deceased on an auto after returning from their relatives function at Arikerevula and the deceased did not observe the road traffic rules and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners claimed interest @18% p.a. and it is highly excessive and contrary to the provisions under Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgments of the Apex Court. 2nd respondent is not aware that the deceased was aged about 59 years and doing agricultural coolie 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 works. 2nd respondent also denied the case filed by the petitioners against 1st respondent. The respondent further contended that according to the claim petition, the petitioners did not file any legal heirs certificate as the petitioners are the only legal heirs to the deceased at the time of the accident and claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest and costs is more excessive and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP16-Z-0188 by 1st respondent, resulting in death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no evidence and no documents are produced. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.7,37,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of deposit and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order, they are jointly and severally liable 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 to pay the amount, on making such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is awarded Rs.6,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- with accrued interest and costs. The remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank at Kakinada for a period of one year. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are awarded Rs.1,37,000/- (Rs.45,667/-, Rs.45,667/-, Rs.45,667/-) and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and costs. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. The award is subject to any compensation already awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The award is subject to payment of court fee, if any, payable. The petitioners are not entitled for any interest for the period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the order and decree of the Tribunal in allowing the claim petition of the claimants is illegal, irregular, contrary to the evidence and probabilities of the case. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that when income was not proved, notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month has to be taken into consideration as per the decision of Apex Court in Sarla Verma case law, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal under all heads granted excess compensation to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 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. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness and Exs.P1 to P5. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 has stated in his chief-affidavit regarding the manner of the accident and he narrated how 1st respondent drove the vehicle at the time of accident on 05.02.2019 at 1.00 P.M. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.P1 attested copy of FIR clearly go to show that 1st respondent drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and Medasani Sesharao, as a result, deceased died on the spot and later Medasani Sesharao succumbed to injuries. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2- eye-witness coupled with Exs.P1 to P5, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle/RTC bus by respondent No.1. 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month by doing agricultural coolie works but have not filed any sufficient evidence to prove the said fact. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased the Tribunal assessed the income notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. 15. As the age of the deceased was mentioned as 59 years on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as ‘9’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.1. As stated supra, the Tribunal below took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and as there are four family members, after deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenditure, it would come to Rs.5,250/- per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,250 × 12 = Rs.63,000/- and after applying the multiplier 9, it would come to Rs.5,67,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards Love and affection, Rs.50,000/- towards Mental agony and pain and suffering, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.7,37,000/- to the claimants. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.7,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on 1 2009 ACJ 1295 SC 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No199 of 2022 higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. 16. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.01.2026 PBS