APHC010257222018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1911/2018 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - CUM - CHAIRMAN, BUS BHAWAN, TIRUPATHI REGION, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO AP 03-Z-5212, TIRUMLA DEPOT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. P BALU NAIK, S/O. P. LAKSHMAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASI 15 BATTALION, RESIDING AT H. NO- S-7/636, SAP CAMP, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTA, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. P BALAMANI, W/O. P. BALU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT H. NO- S-7/636, SAP CAMP, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTA, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. P SATYANARAYANA NAIK, S/O. P. BALU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT H. NO- S-7/636, SAP CAMP, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTA, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. P NAGESWARI BAI, D/O. P. BALU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT H. NO- S-7/636, SAP CAMP, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTA, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. M SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O. M. RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE BUS, S.B.R. PURAM, VADAMALA PETITIONER TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated- 21.12.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.218/2015 on the file of TheChairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VI Additional District Judge,Kurnool for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 days 76 in representing the M.A.C.M.A.S.R. No- 19143 of 2018 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P. No. 218 of 2015 on the file of The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GODAVARTI MOUNIKA The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 JUDGMENT: Heard, Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ms.Godavarti Mounika, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4. 1. Aggrieved by the Order and Decree, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.218 of 2015, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The parties are arrayed as mentioned in the Original Petition before the Tribunal. 3. Initially, before the Tribunal, the petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of P.Kalyan Naik, who died in the accident that occurred on 06.08.2014 at Tirumala – Tirupathi first ghat road. 4. The deceased is the son of the 1st claimant, who is the father, the 2nd claimant is the mother, the 3rd claimant is the brother and the 4th claimant is the sister. In a nutshell, on 06.08.2014 at about 10.45 a.m., while the deceased, along with his friend G.Ravi and others, was walking from Alipiri pedestrian park to Tirumala to have darshan of lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, and when they reached near Akkagarla Gudi, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP03Z5212 of Tirupathi depot, while proceeding from Tirupathi to Tirumala at high speed and in a negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries over his head and thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 12.08.2014 at 08.00 p.m. at 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 Aswini Hospital, Tirumala, and later shifted to Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, where he died while undergoing treatment. 5. The claimants/petitioners contended that they incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and attendant charges and that the deceased was aged about 20 years and was studying 3rd year B.Tech in YSR Engineering College, Yogi Vemana University and due to his sudden death, they lost the love and affection of their son and, in lieu of the same, claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2, who is the driver remained ex parte, whereas respondent No.1, i.e., APSRTC, contested the petition. 6. Taking note of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5212? ii. Whether the deceased P.Kalyan Naik died in the road accident? iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? iv. To what relief? 7. While answering issue No.1, the Tribunal has taken note of Exhibits A1 to A7 marked by the claimants and the evidence of PW1, who is the 2nd claimant, was taken note of. PW2 is K.Shankar Naik, who was the eye-witness, narrated the manner in which the accident occurred and deposed that the deceased died on 12.08.2014 while undergoing treatment. 8. Immediately after receiving the complaint from the de facto complainant, FIR was registered, which also fortifies that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 and the complaint was registered under Section 337 of IPC and later charge sheet was filed in Crime No.30 of 2014, which was later modified to Section 304-A of 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 IPC. The Tribunal has stated about the evidence of PW1 and the Exhibits A1 and A2, which establish that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of respondent No.2. There is no other evidence placed by the respondent-Corporation and basing on the said evidences as indicated above, the issue was answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 9. Now, coming to issue No.2, which was also answered in favour of the claimants duly taking note of Ex.A3 - inquest report, Ex.A4 - Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report and Ex.A6 - the post-mortem certificate, which clinchingly establishes that the deceased died due to the injuries received in the accident. In regard to issue No.3, the Tribunal, while proceeding to consider the aspect of compensation, considered the age of the deceased as 20 years, as per the post-mortem report, which is Ex.A6, and was studying 3rd year B.Tech, which is fortified through Ex.A7, during the years 2012-2014 in YSR Engineering College, Yogi Vemana University. In the petition, the contention resorted was that the deceased being a B.Tech student has every possibility of getting employment and earning above Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per month and because of his sudden death, they lost their dependency and love and affection. 10. The claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna and another vs. Gokul and others1. In the said judgment, the deceased, who was pursuing his engineering final year was aged about 19 years and the Apex Court, after considering the previous judgments, observed on the issue of awarding compensation to the parents of the deceased, who was a student and has taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- per month. While considering the above judgment, the Tribunal, at paragraph No.12 of its judgment, observed that the deceased 1 2014 6 SCC (Civil) 559 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 being a B.Tech student, had every likelihood of drawing a salary at least Rs.20,000/- per month and 50% of his annual income to be deducted towards personal expenses, and the remaining 50% was treated as contribution to the family. 11. As stated above, the claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and the claimants 3 and 4 are the siblings and are treated as dependents. After deducting 50% of his annual income towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and as per the decision in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another2, the relevant multiplier of 18 was applied and total income comes to Rs.1,20,000/- x 18 = Rs.21,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also taken note of awarding Rs.25,000/- each to claimants 1 and 2 and Rs.10,000/- each to claimants 3 and 4 and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount which was awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.22,40,000/-. 12. Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has totally misdirected in considering Rs.20,000/- per month since the deceased was unemployed and was pursing his 3rd year B.Tech. He further contends that the main contentions were not taken into consideration and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was abnormal and needs to be interfered since the same being contrary to the pronouncements of the Apex Court. 13. On the other hand, Ms.Godavarti Mounika, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference and is well within the parameters of law as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. She strongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, wherein all the previous judgments of the Apex 2 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 Court were considered in detail, this Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. When the facts are juxtaposed, the present case appears to be similar and this Court feels that there is no reason to deviate from the findings passed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sususbelli Bapuji and others3. While taking note of all the earlier pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram4, this Court (supra) answered affirmatively regarding the headings as indicated in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi5 and under the heading of „Just Compensation‟, awarded Rs.96,000/- i.e., 40% of the income towards future prospects. 14. As outlined supra, in the case where the learned counsel for the respondents is relying upon, the deceased therein was pursuing his final year B.Tech graduation at G.M.R.Information Technology Institute at Rajam of Srikakulam District. He was 20 years of age. After considering the rulings of the Apex Court, this Court disposed of the appeal by interfering with the order of the Tribunal holding that the Award which was passed was not „Just Compensation‟ and was on the lower side and consequently, under the heading of future prospects, the amount so indicated in the table at Serial No.2 was awarded. 15. During the course of arguments, Ms.G.Mounika, learned counsel for the claimants, placed a calculation memo upon the request made by the Court. With regard to future prospects, after due calculation, the amount derived was Rs.96,000/- i.e., 40% of the income and she fairly conceded that the rest of the Award which was passed by the Tribunal needs no interference, except future prospects. She has drawn the attention of the 3 M.A.C.M.A.No.2139 of 2017, dated 30.07.2024 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 Court to the order passed by the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has not considered in toto regarding future prospects as per the judgments of the Apex Court as discussed in the judgment of this Court narrated supra. Regarding this aspect, this Court finds relative force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and grants 40% of the income towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation is calculated as under: Sl.No Head Compensation awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.20,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,40,000/- 2. Future prospects Rs.96,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (Rs.2,40,000/- + 96,000/2) = Rs.1,68,000/- (i.e., 50% of the income) 4. Total income Rs.1,68,000/- 5. Multiplier of 18 at the age of 20 years Rs.1,68,000/- x 18 = Rs.30,24,000/- 16. Accordingly, the Order and Decree, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.218 of 2015, is hereby modified, enhancing the compensation towards loss of dependency from Rs.21,60,000/- to Rs.30,24,000/-, while the other part of the judgment is not interfered and the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay deficit Court fee, over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that no interest shall be payable on the enhanced amount. 17. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, modifying the Order and Decree of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1911 of 2018 18. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date: 27.02.2026 BMS