APHC010272182023 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: 317/2023 Between: 1 . APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, SALUR DEPOT, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2 . APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, VIZIANAGARAM REGION, VIZIANAGARAM. 3 . APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1 . GORIBINDI NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE PYDIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O MADHYA STREET, OMPILLI VILLAGE, 3ONDAPALLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2 . GORIBINDI, @ GORIBANDA SANTHU S/O LATE PYDIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, LABOURER, R/O MADHYA STREET, OMPILLI VILLAGE, BONDAPALLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3 . KUM GORIBINDI, @ GORUBANDI BHAVANI D/O LATE PYDIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O MADHYA STREET, OMPILLI VILLAGE, BONDAPALLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4 SMT GORIBINDI, @ GORUBANDI GANGARNMA W/O LATE 2 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 . SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O MADHYA STREET, OMPILLI VILLAGE, BONDAPALLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5 . BOORGU KRISHNA, S/O JAMMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O ARIKATHOTA VILLAGE, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P.No. 369/2019 dated 27.07.2022 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 to grant stay of execution of Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P.No. 369/2019 dated 27.07.2022, pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 27.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.369 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,78,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.11,85,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Goribindi Pydi Raju, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.03.2019. 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, in brief, is as follows: On 31.03.2019 at about 13:20 hours, the deceased, Goribindi Pydi Raju, while he was going from Ompilli Village to Vizianagaram by walk on the far left side of the road and when he reached Bangaramma Temple of Gotlam Village, the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 35 Z 0162 came from Gajapathinagaram side and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, without blowing horn and without following traffic rules, and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his forehead, mouth, nose, ear and left leg. Immediately,he was shifted to hospital at Vizianagaram, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. 4 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 04. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy. He was doing labour work and earning Rs.500/- per day and maintaining his family. Due his sudden death, the claimants lost their breadwinner as well as their affectionate family member. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.11,85,000/- from the respondents. 05. The 1st respondent/driver of the bus filed a counter denying the allegations. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased who was suddenly cross the road without observing traffic. It was further stated that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and that the compensation claimed was excessive. 06. The 4th respondent/APSRTC also filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. It was contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, but was occurred due to negligent crossing of the road by the deceased. It was further contended that the service Conductor and passengers in the bus also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license and he did not commit any offence. Hence, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased/Goribindi Pydi Raju died in the accident, which accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP 35 Z 0162 by the 1st respondent/Driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom? and 3. To what relief? 08. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with interest and costs, awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,78,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Out of the total compensation, Rs.4,00,000/- was apportioned to the 1st petitioner, Rs.3,00,000/- was apportioned to the 2nd petitioner, Rs.3,50,000/- to the 3rd petitioner and Rs.1,28,000/- apportioned to the 4thpetitioner. The respondents were directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of the award, and upon such deposit, the 1st petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest from the amount apportioned to her and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for two years; the 2nd petitioner was permitted to withdraw 6 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and the balance amount was directed to be kept deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of two years, the 4th petitioner was permitted to withdraw her total share of Rs.1,28,000/- and the share of the 3rd respondent was directed to be kept in any Nationalized Bank till she attains her majority. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.300/- per day is excessive in the absence of proof. 11. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Jayanthi S.C.Sekhar, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. The contention of the appellant is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. However, a perusal of the record shows that P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was walking on the left side of the road when the bus driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, and nothing material was elicited 7 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. Though R.W.1–driver deposed that the deceased suddenly crossed the road in an intoxicated condition, he admitted that a charge sheet was filed against him, and such a self-serving statement, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the Tribunal, upon considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence including Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A4–charge sheet, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 14. With regard to quantum of compensation, thoughthe petitioners claimed that the deceased earned Rs.500/- per day, no documentary evidence of was produced. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper, having regard to the nature of the work of the deceased as a daily wage labourer and the prevailing wages at the relevant point of time. After deducting 1/4th of his income towards personal expenditure, it comes to Rs.6,750/- (Rs.9,000 - 1/4) and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘13’ applicable for the age group of 45 to 50 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.10,53,000/- (6,750/- X 13 X 12). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st 12009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.317 of 2023 petitioner towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,78,000/-, 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. Accordingly, the point is answered. 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 M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR