APHC010389432022 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: 284/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. PRESENTLY AT RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BANGARU NAGA VARA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE RANGANADH TEJA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O RATNA APARTMENTS, MAJESTIC THEATRE STREET, KAKINADA CITY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BANGARU ESWARA TEJA, S/O LATE RANGANADH TEJA, AGED 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O RATNA APARTMENTS, MAJESTIC THEATRE STREET, KAKINADA CITY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BANGARU AMANI, D/O LATE RANGANADH TEJA, AGED 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O RATNA APARTMENTS, MAJESTIC THEATRE STREET, KAKINADA CITY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. KOMATI GANESWARARAO, S/O CHINA VEERRAJU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. RTC DRIVER, R/O HNO. 8-118, KOLAMURU VILLAGE, RAJAHMUNDRY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P NO. 42 of 2018, dated 03.06.2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 operation of Decree and Order dated 03.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 42 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice 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 pleased to vacate the stay orders dated 10-08¬2022 of this Honrble Court in I.A. No. 01/2022 inNI.A.C.M.A.No. 284 OF 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KVSD RAVI TEJA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 03.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2018 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.25,85,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Eighty Five thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.35,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Bangaru Ravi Ranganadh Teja in a motor accident that occurred on 30.10.2017. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 30.10.2017 at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased along with his friend Srinivas started from Temple Street to Sri-Complex area of Kakinada on a scooter bearing No.AP05 DQ 4509 and when they reached to Salipeta First Street, Kakinada at about 1.15 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28 Z 647 dashed the deceased scooter from behind on its left side of the scooter. As a result, the deceased and his friend fell on the road and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, the deceased as well as his friend were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where the deceased died on the same day while undertaking treatment. As the accident was caused due to 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus, a case was registered against the driver in Crime No.150 of 2017 under Sections 337, 304-A IPC by the S.H.O., Kakinada III Town Police Station. The petitioners/claimants contended that, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years and was doing cloth business under the name and style as ‘Varalakshmi Textiles’ and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioners were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. 04. Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle filed a counter denying the age of the deceased and the manner of the accident. He contended that the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased, the manner of the accident, and that he possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He further stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is very excessive and prays hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 05. Respondent No.2 also filed a counter stating that the accident occurred due to non-observation of traffic rules by the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus. It was further contended that, as per the FIR and other documents, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 was also contended that the petitioners failed to file a legal heir certificate or succession certificate. The claim of compensation and interest is more excessive. Therefore, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 647 by the 1st respondent, resulting in death of deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. P.W.2 was examined as an eye-witness P.W.3, the Income Tax Inspector, Kakinada was also examined. Exs.P1 to P6 and Exs.X1 to X3 (income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-2018) were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarded compensation of Rs.25,85,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, with costs. Respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and were directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of the 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 order. On such deposit, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded to the 1st petitioner and she was permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at Kakinada for a period of one year. The 2nd petitioner was awarded Rs.8,00,000/- and he was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of one year in any nationalized bank at Kakinada. The 3rd petitioner was awarded Rs.7,85,000/- and she was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,85,000/- with accrued interest and costs and the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of one year in any nationalized bank at Kakinada. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not impleaded as parties. It was further contended that no material evidence was placed on record to prove that the deceased was running a cloth business and that, in the absence of proof of fixed income, granting 10% towards future prospects is unsustainable. Therefore, it was contended that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 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? POINT: 12. 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 of P.W.2. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the accident. He was also travelling as a pillion rider along with the deceased at the time of accident. Thus, he is an eye-witness to the accident and he is the best person to speak about the manner of accident. His evidence clearly goes to show that the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. Ex.P1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.P3- certified copy of charge sheet also support the same. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents nor any evidence was produced to assert that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of the crime vehicle and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Exs.P1 and P3, attested copy of FIR and charge sheet respectively, would show that a case in Crime No.150/2017 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered on the file of III Town Police Station, 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 Kakinada and, after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet alleging that the 1st respondent is liable for commission of the said offence. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioners could establish that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus only. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was aged about 48 years and doing cloth business under the name and style of Varalakshmi Textile Cloth business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the earnings of the deceased, Exs.P4 to P6 and Exs.X1 to X3 were filed and P.W.3, the Income Tax Inspector, was examined. As per Ex.X1, the total income was Rs.2,76,870/-; as per Ex.X2, Rs.2,78,540/-; and as per Ex.X3, Rs.3,06,530/-. Considering Ex.X3, the Tribunal rounded off the income of the deceased as Rs.3,00,000/- per annum as on the date of the accident. After considering the number of dependents as three, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased was deducted towards personal expenditure, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, which comes to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000 – Rs.1,00,000). In addition, 10% of his income was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2 and accordingly, the annual income 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.284 of 2022 of the deceased was arrived at Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.2,00,000 X 10%), which cannot be found fault with. Applying the relevant multiplier ‘11’ for the age group the deceased i.e., 53 years, as per the decision of the Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.24,20,000/- (Rs.2,20,000/- X 11). Further, in terms of the decision of the Pranay Sethi (referred supra), the claimants were awarded to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and Rs.88,000/- towards parental consortium. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,85,000/-, 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. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 KGR