APHC010368352022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT APSRTC DEPOT, VIJAYAWADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP07 Z 0074). 1. MURIKIPUDI ADAM, S/O 3-194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MURIKIPUDI BALA RAJU, S/O ADAM, AGED 21 YEARS,D.NO. 3 SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIM KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. MURIKIPUDI LIKHITHA, D/O ADAM, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER 11G RESPONDENT MURIKIPUDI ADAM, D.NO. 3 PAMIDIMARRU VILL NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. VADAMUDI HARI KRISHNA, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO. 729040, NARASARAOPET DEPOT. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 07 Z 0074) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 277 APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT APSRTC DEPOT, VIJAYAWADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. ...APPELLANT AND MURIKIPUDI ADAM, S/O CHINNA AKKAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS,D.NO. 194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. MURIKIPUDI BALA RAJU, S/O ADAM, AGED 21 YEARS,D.NO. 3 SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. MURIKIPUDI LIKHITHA, D/O ADAM, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER 11G RESPONDENT MURIKIPUDI ADAM, D.NO. 3-194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. VADAMUDI HARI KRISHNA, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO. 729040, NARASARAOPET DEPOT. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 07 Z 0074) ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 277 OF 2022 APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT APSRTC DEPOT, VIJAYAWADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. ...APPELLANT CHINNA AKKAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS,D.NO. 194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MURIKIPUDI BALA RAJU, S/O ADAM, AGED 21 YEARS,D.NO. 3-194, ARRU VILLAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, MURIKIPUDI LIKHITHA, D/O ADAM, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER 11G RESPONDENT MURIKIPUDI 194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, AGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALEM, VADAMUDI HARI KRISHNA, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO. 729040, NARASARAOPET DEPOT. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 07 Z 0074) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the order and decree dated 22- 04-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 9 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and pass such f 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 22-04-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 9 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 277 OF 2022 JUDGMENT : The M.A.C.M.A under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.2/ APSRTC challenging the Award, dated 22.04.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2020 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 12,05,000/- to the respondents 1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: On 07.07.2019, the Murikipudi Yesamma, hereinafter referred to as “deceased’ was returning from Guntur to Narasaraopet and reached near Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jonnalagadda at 11.00 a.m as pillion rider on the bike bearing registration No. AP 07 CE 3314, by that time the Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending RTC bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. Resulting the deceased fell down sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The rider Balu Naik also sustained injuries, who was shifted to hospital. The Police, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station registered a case in FIR No. 271 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 337, 304-A of IPC. 4 4. The Respondent No.1 remained exparte. 5. The Respondent No.2 filed Counter denying the material averments in the petition and inter alia contended that there is no negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1. In the said two wheeler three persons were travelled against the rules and unable to control the vehicle and dashed the RTC bus. There is no fault on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. The Petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e insurer of the motor cycle. The compensation claimed by the Petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. For all these and other grounds, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing Registration No. AP 07 Z 0074 and caused the death of Murikipudi Yesamma? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so? Wheat is the quantum and from whom? And 3. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the Petitioner No.2 himself is examined as P.W.1, and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 himself got examined as R.W.1, but no document is marked. 5 8. The Tribunal having observed that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased as per investigation done by the Police, held that the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly, the claim petition is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 12,05,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said liability, the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 preferred this appeal. 9. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/ APSRTC and Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the Tribunal below erroneously held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC without there being any acceptable evidence on record. The RTC Bus never hit the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal without appreciating the evidence, awarded compensation, though there is contributory negligence on the part of motorcycle driven by three persons, who dashed the bus negligently. As there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the award of the tribunal is not sustainable under law. 6 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that there is no negligence on the part of the Respondents. To substantiate their contentions, Ex.P1 copy of FIR and Ex.P5 MVI Report were marked to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded and passed the Award. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the Claimant No.2, who is the son of the deceased examined himself as PW-1 and to prove the manner of accident got examined PW-2. Though, PW- 2 stated about the manner of the accident in his chief examination, during the course of cross examination, he admitted that he is not an eyewitness to the accident and that he has not seen the bike. Hence, relying upon the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Ex.P1- copy of FIR in Crime No. 271 of 2019 of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station; Ex.P4 – copy of the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.827 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the 7 accident occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.1 resulting the death of the deceased. 14. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal awarding compensation is on reasonable basis or not? 15. In the case on hand, as the deceased was 39 years old as on the date of the accident and she was an agricultural coolie, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, in the absence of documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, the annual income arrived at Rs. 72,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12). Further, the deceased is entitled for 40% of the income in addition of future prospects. If 40% is added towards future prospects i.e (Rs. 72,000/- + Rs. 28,800), it comes to total Rs. 1,00,800/- under the head of loss of earnings. 16. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the age of the deceased is 39 years as on the date of accident. As per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Others” 1 , wherein it was held that in case, if the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be added towards further prospects, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. As the deceased was aged about 39 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal 1 AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 8 expenses, it comes to Rs. 67,200/- x 15= Rs. 10,08,000/-. But however the Tribunal has wrongly calculated as Rs. 10,80,000/- towards of loss of dependency. As no amount under the head of loss of consortium has been awarded to the Respondents 2 and 3, the differentiated amount of Rs. 72,000/- is adjusted under the head of loss of consortium to the Respondents No.2 and 3 herein. 17. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants and as well as exhibits relied on by them has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 12,05,000/-, 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 Claimant. 18. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 02.02.2026 KK