APHC010390112022 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: 291 OF 2022 Between: 1. THE A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Tenali Depot, Tenali, Guntur District. 2. The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (No at RTC House, PNBS, Vijayawada, Krishna District) ...Petitioners AND 1. SMT SAMALA DEVI KUMARI, W/o. Late Ravi Kumar, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, R/o.D.No.3-1-164, Vidyadhara Puram, Near Sitara Theatre, Vijayawada. 2. Samala Venkata Chamundeswari, D/o Late Ravi Kumar, Hindu, Aged about 12 years, Student, Minor rep by her mother and Natural guardian Samala Devi Kumari, R/o.D.No.3-1-164, Vidyadhara Puram, Near Sitara Theatre, Vijayawada. 3. Samala Venkata Iswarya, D/o Late Ravi Kumar, Hindu, Aged about 7 years, Student, Minor rep by her mother and Natural guardian Samala Devi Kumari, R/o D.No.3-1-164, Vidyadhara Puram, Near Sitara Theatre, Vijayawada. 4. Samala Rama Tulasi, W/o.Late RadhaKrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, R/o D.No.3-1-164, Vidyadhara Puram, Near Sitara Theatre, Vijayawada. 5. Movva Sambasiva Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 53 years, Tenali RTC Depot, E.No.350053, R/o. Mulpuri Village, Amruthaluru Mandal, Gantur District. (Driver in APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 4015) ...Respondents 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 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 29.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X111 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass such other orders. 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 29-04-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 246 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XlIl Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.16,70,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs and Seventy thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Samala Ravi Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 27.10.2010. 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 and 3rd petitioners are daughters and 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased Samala Ravi Kumar. On 27.10.2010 the deceased went to Charukupalli, Guntur District on his business purpose and after completing his work he started on his motor bike bearing No.AP16-AD-2350 Hero Honda Passion to reach his house at Vijayawada and coming towards Tenali via Kuchipudi, on the way, he crossed Mulupu cross road and reached mile stone No.4 at about 8.00 pm, the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP10-Z-4015 driven by its driver, 1st respondent, which was coming in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following the traffic rules hit the 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 motor cycle. As a result, he fell down and the bus ran over the deceased due to which he died instantaneously. Basing on the report Amruthaluru police registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2010 under Section 304(A) IPC. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged 45 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing Pharmaceuticals manufacturing and distribution business 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.2 remained exparte. 06. Respondent No.3/APSRTC being represented by Regional Manager filed written statement adopted by the 1st respondent, denying all the allegations made in the petition while putting the petitioners to strict proof of each and every allegation made by them in the petition particularly regarding the manner of accident resulting in death of the deceased, involvement of the crime vehicle, the relationship, dependency and legal heir-ship of the petitioners with the deceased, the age, avocation and income of the deceased while contending that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, but the accident took place due to his own rash and negligent driving of his motorcycle and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. While further contending that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 necessary parties and that the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether Mr. Samala Ravi Kumar, S/o Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy died due to the motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.10.2010 at about 8.00 pm at Mulupu cross road, Kuchipudi village, Amarthaluru Mandal, Guntur District? 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 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents are marked. 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.16,70,000/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum on the said amount from the date of the presentation of the petition i.e., from 13.06.2013 till the date of realization; the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner Nos.1 to 4; out of total compensation the 1st petitioner is entitled to take sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs; out of total compensation the 2nd petitioner is entitled to take sum of 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs; out of total compensation the 3rd petitioner is entitled to take sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs; out of total compensation the 4th petitioner entitled to take sum of Rs.1,70,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs; on such deposit, petitioners are entitled to withdrawn their respective amounts and on deposit of amounts of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall be fixed deposit in any Nationalized Banks till they attain majority. Time granted for deposit of amount 30 days from the date of award and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the respective amounts of the petitioners on payment of court fee on the amount awarded to them as per law and till the payment of court fee. They are not entitled to enforce the decree. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred as the deceased drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in death of the deceased and hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. Even though the petitioners not filed any document to show the income of the deceased, the tribunal taken his income as Rs.10,000/- per month and also wrongly taken higher multiplier i.e., 14. The bus belonged to APSRTC did not hit the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and hence the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 Rs.16,70,000/- even though there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by riding his motorcycle rashly and negligently and ought to have dismiss the claim petition on sole ground of non-joinder of insurer of motor cycle. It is therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 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? POINT: 13. This Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, the claimants got examined PWs 1 and 2. PW1 is wife of the deceased who is admittedly not the eyewitness to the accident. In support of her case, she got marked Ex.A1 to A9 documents. Since she is not an eyewitness, her evidence is no way helpful on whose negligence the accident occurred. 14. Now, coming to the evidence of PW2, who is eyewitness to the incident and admittedly working as meat vendor, deposed that the bus coming in the same direction driving by its driver/1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following the traffic rules hit the motor cycle due to which the deceased fell down and the bus ran over the 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 deceased. He deposed that the accident was entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus. Nothing was elicited during his cross- examination to disbelieve his testimony and no evidence is put forth by the appellant to prove that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. Therefore, as righty held by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 is responsible for the accident. 15. Coming to the dependents, it can be safely held that PWs 1 to 4 are the claimants who are wife, daughters and mother of the deceased and they are entitled for the compensation as held by the tribunal. 16. Now, with regard to age of the deceased, basing on Ex.A6 attested Xerox copy of charge sheet, there is no dispute about the age of the deceased as 45 years. Though the petitioner filed Ex.A7 to A9 to prove that the deceased was not unemployed and was engaged in Pharmaceuticals manufacturing and distribution business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, and as there was no documentary evidence, the Tribunal determined notionally his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month. 17. By taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and upon notional increase of income at 25% as the deceased was below 50 years Rs.12,500/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,500/-), and upon deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses Rs. 9,375/-(Rs.12,500/- - Rs.3,125/-), his annual income would amount to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375/- x 12) and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘14’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years as per Ex.A6 attested Xerox copy of charge sheet, as per the guidelines 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.15,75,000/- (Rs.1,12,500/- x 14) which was rounded off to Rs.16,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings and dependency, 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 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.16,70,000/- 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. 18. The Tribunal has rightly relied on the findings of various decisions of the High Courts in support of its observations regarding fixing multiplier and also notional increase of income. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier and calculated the amounts entitled by the claimants and awarded compensation including the conventional heads. 19. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference necessitates to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects and as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellants. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2022 20. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 PBS