APHC010358592022 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: 271/2022 Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, RTC BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ELICHERLA CHANDRAKALA, W/O LATE E. NAGI REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, HINDU, OCC HOUSE WIFE. 2. ELICHERLA ADI KESAVA REDDY, S/O LATE E. NAGI REDDY, AGED 15 YEARS, HINDU, MINOR. 3. ELICHERLA GEETHA NAGA MAHESWARI, D/O LATE E. NAGI REDDY, AGED 13 YEARS, HINDU, MINOR. 4. ELICHERLA JASHNAVI, D/O LATE E. NAGI REDDY, AGED 11 YEARS, HINDU, MINOR. 5. ELICHERLA RAMAKKA, W/O E. CHENCHU REDDY, AGED 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCCHOUSE WIFE. (RESPONDENTS NOS.2TO4 ARE BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN).RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1TO5 6. G RAVISANKAR REDDY, S/O G.LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, CONDUCTOR, BUS BEARING NO. AP 29Z 2715, R/O SUNKESULA VILLAGE, KHAJIPETA POST AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 7. S CHAND BASHA, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, MAJOR DRIVER OF BUS NO.AP 29 Z 2715, APSRTC, MYDUKUR, RTC DEPOT, KADAPA DISTRICT. (6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS ARE HEREIN CONDUCTOR AND DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...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 06.04.2022 passed in MVOP No. 622 of 2018 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa to pass 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 execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 622 of 2018 dt. 06- 04-2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 06.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.622 of 2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.19,60,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs and Sixty thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.50,65,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Elicherla Nagi Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 29.10.2018. 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 wife, the 2nd petitioner is son, 3rd and 4th petitioners are the daughters and 5th petitioner is the mother of deceased Elicherla Nagi Reddy. On 29.10.2018 the 1st petitioner along with her husband/deceased Elicherla Nagi Reddy boarded in APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP29-Z-2715 belonging to the 1st respondent and when the Bus reached near Sivasettypalli cross road, at 8.00 am, as the 1st petitioner was not feeling well, the driver/3rd respondent of the Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and the Conductor/2nd respondent of the Bus failed to close the door of the Bus as there were 30 persons including the school children and due to pushing of the 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 passengers and due to the jolt of the bus, E.Nagi Reddy/deceased fell down from the bus and on the request of the passengers, the driver of the Bus stopped the Bus and E.Nagi Reddy sustained fatal injuries to his head and the 1st petitioner engaged a private vehicle and took him to Government Hospital, Porumamilla and on the way at Narasingupalli, E.Nagi Reddy died. Basing on a report, a case in Cr.No.162 of 2018 was registered under Section 304(A) of IPC, against the driver and conductor of the RTC bus bearing No.AP29-Z- 2715. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was a cook and he used to earn Rs.2,000/- per day by running a hotel and on account of death of the deceased, their family lost his earnings besides his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.50,65,000/- from respondents No.1 to 3, the APSRTC, conductor and driver of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained exparte. 06. Respondent No.1/APSRTC filed a written statement, stating that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the driver of the Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased sat on the foot board without knowledge of the Conductor and due to which the deceased fell down and the accident occurred due to negligence of the 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 deceased and petitioners influenced the police and filed a false case and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased E.Nagi Reddy died due to the injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.10.2018 at about 8.10 am, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP29-Z-2715. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pay compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence adduced. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.19,60,000/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. On deposit of the said amount by the respondents, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs and Eighty thousand only) along with 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 accrued interest and costs. Further, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the son and daughters of the deceased are held entitled to Rs.2,45,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Five thousand only). The compensation so awarded to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank till the said minors attain majority. The petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount of Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Forty Five thousand only) along with accrued interest and costs. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.1/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that evidently at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in bus, sitting on the foot board of the bus, while the driver of the bus pressed the break then he had fallen down on the road and sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the RTC is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding an amount of Rs.19,60,000/- towards loss of dependency which is highly excessive without any base. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 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? 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 POINT: 13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was sitting on the foot board of the bus. However, this also shows the negligence on the part of 2nd respondent/conductor in discharging his duty of ensuring that all passengers in the bus were sitting or standing safely. This, in turn, indicates rashness and negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent as well. 14. The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the conductor to ensure that the passengers in the bus are seated or standing safely. Even though the deceased was sitting on the footboard, it was the duty of the conductor to ensure that the deceased was not permitted to sit on the footboard. This establishes negligence on the part of respondent No.2, and accordingly, the Tribunal held that both the driver and the conductor of the bus were negligent. 15. The Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in this regard. 16. Accordingly, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant, which, in the opinion of this Court, is well-reasoned and requires no interference. 17. It is the case of PW1 that the deceased was a cook earning Rs.2,000/- per day and that petitioner Nos.1 and 5 were not assisting him in running the hotel. Apart from this, the deceased also owned 5 acres of land, where he 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 cultivated Bengal gram and other crops. He also owned two house-site properties from which he earned Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per annum, respectively. In support of the same, PW2 and PW3 were examined. 18. PW2, who used to supply green leaves and other vegetables to the deceased, and PW3, who is the owner of the complex in which the deceased was running the hotel, were examined. However, during the course of cross- examination, PWs 2 and 3 admitted that there was no documentary evidence to establish any lease between PW3 and the deceased, and no receipts evidencing payment of tax on the commercial complex were produced. 19. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the net income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is in accordance with the evidence adduced. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. The deceased was aged about 45 years, and the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. Applying the same, the loss of income comes to Rs.20,16,000/-. As there are five dependents, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses, which results in a loss of dependency of Rs.15,12,000/-. 20. Further, the Tribunal added 25% towards future prospects as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others, bringing the amount to Rs.18,90,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges and Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium to petitioner No.1 alone. In total the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,60,000/-. However, the Tribunal have not awarded consortium to 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2022 petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (minor children) and petitioner No.5 (mother of the deceased). Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to award an additional sum of Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, which amounts to Rs.1,60,000/-. Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount now awarded 1 Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/- Rs.18,90,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4 Funerals expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.19,60,000/- Rs.21,20,000/- 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, this Court feels it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Tribunal only to the extent of loss of consortium to the remaining petitioner Nos.2 to 5 by enhancing the total compensation from Rs.19,60,000/- to Rs.21,20,000/-. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 PBS