APHC010400232022 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. THE APSRTC ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,, NEW RTC BUS STAND PREMISES, KURNOOL. 1. PASUPULA VENKATA NARASMMA, W/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE. 2. PASUPULA SIVA, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT. 3. PASUPULA VENKATESH, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, HINDU, SUDENT. (RESPONDENTS NOS.2AND3 ARE BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E., FIRST RESPONDENT) 4. PASUPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O PASUPULA YELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, HINDU. 5. M EEDAMMA, W/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE. (ALL ARE R/O H.NO.4 KOTHAPETA, SRISAILAM) 6. S SHAIKSHA VALI, S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MUSLIM, DRIVER OF APSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP02Z0154, R/O H.NO.28-5-229, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, ANATAPURAM DISTRICT. (6TH RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC 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: 299 OF THE APSRTC ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,, NEW RTC BUS STAND PREMISES, KURNOOL. ...APPELLANT AND PASUPULA VENKATA NARASMMA, W/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE. PASUPULA SIVA, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT. PASUPULA VENKATESH, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, HINDU, SUDENT. (RESPONDENTS NOS.2AND3 ARE BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E., FIRST RESPONDENT) PASUPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O PASUPULA YELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, HINDU. M EEDAMMA, W/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE. (ALL ARE R/O H.NO.4-7-149-1, VADDERA COLONY, KOTHAPETA, SRISAILAM) S SHAIKSHA VALI, S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MUSLIM, DRIVER OF APSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP02Z0154, R/O 229, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, ANATAPURAM DISTRICT. (6TH RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 299 OF 2022 THE APSRTC ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,, NEW RTC BUS STAND ...APPELLANT PASUPULA VENKATA NARASMMA, W/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED PASUPULA SIVA, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, PASUPULA VENKATESH, S/O PASUPULA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, HINDU, SUDENT. (RESPONDENTS NOS.2AND3 ARE BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND PASUPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O PASUPULA YELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT M EEDAMMA, W/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HINDU, 1, VADDERA COLONY, S SHAIKSHA VALI, S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MUSLIM, DRIVER OF APSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP02Z0154, R/O 229, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, ANATAPURAM DISTRICT. (6TH RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC 2 NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 299 OF 2022 JUDGMENT:- The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 02.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2022 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,87,800/-, as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Pasupula Raju in a motor accident that occurred on 21.03.2016. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 21.03.2016, Mr. Pasupula Raju (herein after referred to as “deceased” along with his younger brother namely Bhaskar at Sunipenta and after completion of the coolie work, they returned to Srisailam and at about 4.45 p.m, when the said Bhaskar was waiting for his brother (deceased), on a tractor near Bio Diversity, could observe the deceased crossing the road to board the tractor and meanwhile, the Respondent No.1 bus bearing No. AP 02 Z 0154 came with high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, causing his death, which occurred in the Government Hospital, Sunipenta. A case was registered in Crime No. 13 of 2016 of Srisailam II Town Police Station. Therefore, the claimants filed the Claim Petition. 4 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 remained exparte. 5. Respondent No.1/APSRTC filed a written statement by denying the liability to pay any amount to the claimants stating that the cause of said accident was that the deceased suddenly tried to cross the road and dashed against the bus, and he could not hear the horn as he was deaf. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 21.03.2016 at 4.45 p.m on Srisailam to Sunnipenta road, was due to rash and negligent driving of R2 being driver of R1 Corporation bus bearing No. AP 02 Z 0154, wherein Pasupula Raju died? 2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? 3. Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no one is examined and no document was marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.11,87,800/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date 5 of filing of the petition till the date of realization and Respondents No.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.1/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. 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. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that relying upon the evidence adduced by the Claimants, coupled with Ex.A1- First Information Report, Ex.A2-Altered FIR; Ex.A3 - Inquest Report and Ex.A6- Charge Sheet, which was clearly mentioned that the Respondent No.2 drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, the Tribunal, having considered the matter in entirety, came to the conclusion that the 6 claimants could prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by the Respondent No.1 and no interference is warranted with the said finding of the Tribunal. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day i.e Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of the documentary proof with regard to earning capacity of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month i.e Rs. 150/- per day. As the deceased was self- employed, 40% of his income i.e., Rs.1,800/- was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby assessed total dependency as Rs.5,175/-. After deducting 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 25 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.11,17,800/-. (Rs.4,500 + 1,800/- =6,300/- - Rs. 3,375/- (i.e less 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses). Further, the claimants were awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, totalling to Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 7 be entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,87,800/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 14. 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 Claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 11,87,800/-, 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. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.02.2026 KK