APHC010346592022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 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: 263 OF 2022 Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Amaravathi, Vijayawada. (Owner of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP27 Z 0208). ...Petitioner AND 1. Shaik Parveen, W/o Shaik Rouf, Muslim, Aged 42 years, 2. Shaik Rouf alias Shaik Ravoof, S/o late Haneef, Muslim, Aged 47 years, R1 and R2 are residing at D.No. 14-546, 1st Street, 3. Patan Nayab Rasool, S/o late Moulali, Muslim, aged 40 years, Residing at Rahamath Nagar, Chandrasekharapuram Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. (Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 27 Z.0208) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree dated 23.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.617 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 23-03-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.617 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IVII Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondents: SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 23.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.617 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,39,600/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Thirty Nine thousand and Six hundred only), as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Shaik Imran in a motor accident that occurred on 02.05.2018. 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 is briefly as follows: The 1st petitioner is the mother and 2nd petitioner is the father of the deceased Shaik Imran. On 02.05.2018 night at about 11.00 hours, the deceased/Shaik Imran and another AC mechanic namely Syed Jameer went to Kavali on a motorcycle bearing No.AP26-AL-4633 for installation of AC units. After completion of their works on 03.05.2018 night at about 1.15 pm, the deceased and Syed Jameer left Kavali and returning to Nellore on their motorcycle and Syed Jameer was sitting on the backside of the motorcycle as pillion rider. At about 2.30 am, on 03.05.2018 when they reached Venkateswarapuram Fly Over Bridge, at that time, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP27-Z-0208 of Kanigiri Depot being driven by its driver/1st respondent with high speed in a rash and 4 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and Syed Jameer fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, the deceased and Syed Jameer were shifted to Narayana General Hospital, Nellore in 108 ambulance for treatment, whereas the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared as died. Basing on the report, Nellore Rural police registered a case in Crime No.260 of 2018 under Section 304(A) and 337 IPC. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged 23 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing AC mechanic work and on account of death of the deceased, their family lost his earnings besides his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and APSRTC of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 filed his counter by denying the averments mentioned in the petition and further refuted and remonstrated on the ground that 1st respondent being employee and 2nd respondent being employer has to liable to pay the amount if tribunal grants compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 06. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed its counter by denying the averments mentioned in the petition and further refuted and remonstrated on the ground that the manner of accident as narrated in the claim application is invented to gain compensation wrongfully. Deceased rode his motor bike in a rash and 5 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 negligent manner without observing vehicular traffic and he voluntarily hit APSRTC bus and there is no rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus and amount claimed by the claimants as legal heirs of deceased are not tenable and prays to dismiss the petition with costs. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP27-Z-0208 and whether it resulted death of Shaik Imran or not? 2. Whether the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he was doing AC mechanic work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month or not? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, Rw.1 was examined and no documents got marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally in favour of the petitioners with proportionate costs by granting the compensation with the following relief; petitioners are entitled for Rs.12,39,600/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of petition till the date of 6 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 realization, 2nd respondent/APSRTC Corporation is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.12,39,600/- within 30 days from the date of this award, otherwise, the petitioners are entitled 9% per annum interest on the awarded amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. On such deposit, the 1st and 2nd petitioners being the parents of deceased are entitled Rs.6,19,800/- each out of total compensation amount. 1st and 2nd petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.5,19,800/- each out of their apportionment and remaining Rs.Rs.1,00,000/- each shall be kept in FDR, in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year or until further orders and petitioners are directed to pay court fee for execution of decree. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP27-Z-0208 without there being any acceptable evidence on record and the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased along with pillion rider rode his motor bike in a rash and negligent manner without observing vehicular traffic and voluntarily hit APSRTC bus but the driver of the bus was falsely implicated who is not liable for cause of accident and the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the claimants for grant of compensation, the compensation awarded is highly excessive and unwarranted. It is therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 11. 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. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness and Exs.A1 and A4. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 has categorically deposed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 by his A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No.AP27 Z 0208. Exs.A1 and A4, attested copy of FIR and charge sheet respectively, would show that the police registered criminal case in Crime No.260 of 2018 under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C against respondent No.1/driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP27 Z 0208. Though the A.P.S.R.T.C. took a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence 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 A4/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. 8 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the petitioners/claimants that the deceased studied ITI and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month as AC Mechanic, but did not file documentary to that effect. However, column No.15 of Ex.A2 inquest report discloses that deceased was doing AC Mechanic Work. Hence, considering the same, Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. 15. By taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and considering the notional increase of the income of the deceased at 40% as future prospects and after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident, his annual loss of income would amount to (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- x 50% x 12 = Rs.67,200/-) and after applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 23 years, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 , the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18), 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 of funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are also just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.12,39,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.263 of 2022 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. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 17. 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