APHC010284492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 260/2022 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP.BY IT'S M.D/VICE CHAIRMAN, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. N GUNASEKHAR, S/O LATE M.NARAYANASWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DEPENDENT. 2. R BHARATHI, W/O N.GUNASEKHAR, HINDU, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O D.NO.2-168, MURAKAMBATTU, CHITTOOR 3. T ANANDUDU, S/O LATE T.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP28/Z-5631, R/O D.NO.4-1, THELLAGUNDLAVALASA CHITTOOR RURAL MANDAL. (3RD RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSPTC NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVOP No. 260 of 2018 On the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Chittoor to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 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 21days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Chittoor passed in MVOP No.260 of 2018 dt. 08.12.2021 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 execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 260 of 2018 dated. 08.12.2021 On the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Chittoor pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C, filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P. No.260 of 2018 dated 08.12.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, as against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased G.Reddappa in a motor accident that occurred on 09.07.2016. 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: i). On 09.07.2016, at about 4.00 p.m., when the deceased G.Reddappa was proceeding on his TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP03-P-9330 along with pillion-rider by name D. Ravi Kiran on his left side of the road, on the way, when they reached near More-Super-Market, Chittoor, the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28-Z-5631 driven by 1st respondent suddenly took a turn towards Palamaner side and hit the moped of deceased and thereby the 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 deceased fell down and the left rear wheel of the bus ran-over the body of the deceased and on the same day, the deceased died while taking treatment. ii). Being the parents of the deceased, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the driver of the crime vehicle and the A.P.S.R.T.C. 04. Respondent No.1-driver of A.P.S. Road Transport Corporation filed counter, denying the allegations in the petition and stated that on the date of accident the deceased being the rider came on the wrong side i.e., on the left side of the bus and turned towards Palamaner side without taking minimum care and thereby he fell on the left side back wheel of the bus. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. There was a contributory negligence on the part of the motor cycle of the deceased and finally prayed for dismissal of the petition. 05. Respondent No.2 also filed separate counter and submitted that the deceased was proceeding in rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident occurred. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 06. The Tribunal on considering the rival contentions of both the parties, settled the following issues for enquiry: “1.Whether the deceased/G.Reddappa died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/1st respondent of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28-Z-5631? 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3.To what relief?” 07. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and no documents are marked. 08. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of proper presentation of the petition i.e.,22.10.2018, to till the date of realization. 09. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: 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 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 of P.W.2-eye witness and Exs.A1 and A2. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, himself along with the deceased, while they were proceeding on the moped of the deceased bearing No.AP03-P-9330, one RTC bus bearing No.AP28-Z-5631, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and took a turn and hit the moped of deceased, as a result of which they fell down and the left side rear wheel of the bus ran over the body of deceased and he died while taking treatment. Exs.A1 and A2, attested copy of FIR and charge sheet respectively, would show that the police registered criminal case against respondent No.1/driver of the RTC bus and the same was ended in conviction and the appellate-Court also confirmed the conviction given by the trial-Court on the appeal filed by respondent No.1. Though the Corporation took a plea that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate that plea. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2-eye-witness coupled with Exs.A1 and A2/attested copies of FIR and charge sheet, 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. 13. As far as the non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, the Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 & A2, categorically found that the accident occurred only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries later. Therefore, 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 the said finding of the Tribunal became final and need no interference in absence of specific evidence. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be sustained. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Computer Operator in Om Sri Vinayaka Food Grains, Chittoor. To prove the said fact the petitioners examined PW3, who is the Proprietor and issued Ex.A6 Salary Certificate. 15. By taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and considering the notional increase of the income of the deceased at 40% towards future prospects, the notional monthly income would come to Rs.14,000/-(Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/-) and upon deducting 50% towards his personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor (Rs.14,000/- x 50% = Rs.7,000/-), his annual income would amount to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7,000 x 12) and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 28 years, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 , the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.14,28,000/- (Rs.84,000/- x 17), for convenient purpose, arriving round- figure of Rs.14,30,000/- towards loss of future earnings, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and requires no interference. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2022 of funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, are also just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 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: 27.01.2026 PBS