APHC010442092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 341/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC,, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD TELANGANA STATE, PRESENTLY AT RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. VEMU SAI LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE VEMU SUBRAHMANYAM HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.68-10-1/J, VASISTA STREET, NEAR IDEAL COLLEGE, VIDHYUTH NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AADHAAR NO.543330677502. 2. VEMU SOWJANYA, D/O. LATE VEMU SUBRAHMANYAM HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 11, 1ST FLOOR, FERNS RAINBOW DRIVE, SARJARPURA MAIN ROAD, OPP. WIPRO OFFICE, HALANAYAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 035. KARNATAKA. AADHAAR NO. 623388012649. 3. BAAGOTHULA VEERABABU, S/O. B. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO. AP 05 Z 5194, I.D.NO.E.602640 R/O. D.NO.18-10-99, GANDHI NAGAR, SAMAIKOTA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (R3 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) 4. GARIMELLA SRI SAI SANTHI, D/O. LATE VEMU SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED 33 YEARS, HOSUEWIFE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT U.S.A. AADHAAR NO.288572206332 2 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomemorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No. 134 of 2019, dated 09.05.2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order dated 09.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 134 of 2019 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Interim Order Stay dated: 06.09.2022 in MACMA. No: 341 of 2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 09.05.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.134 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, as per their claim, on account of the death of the deceased Vemu Subrahmanyam in a motor accident that occurred on 19.06.2018. 02. For the sake 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: a) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd respondent is the daughters of deceased. b) On 19.06.2018, the deceased boarded an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP05 Z 5194 at Patamata, Vijayawada and at about 3.00 pm., the 1st respondent, who was driving the said bus in which the deceased was travelling, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained injuries to his neck. Immediately, he was shifted to Help Hospital, Vijayawada and thereafter to Care Banjara, Hyderabad for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. In 4 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 connection with the said accident, a case was registered in Crime No.404 of 2018 under Section 304-A IPC by the Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada. 04. The petitioners contended that the deceased was energetic, hale and healthy and was maintaining the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the entire family was put to great mental shock and they also lost the love and affection of the deceased. Thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under the following heads: a. Special Damages: Loss of earnings Rs.10,000-00 b. Damage to clothes and articles Rs.20,000-00 c. Funeral expenses For General Damages: a. Compensation for loss of consortium to 1st petitioner Rs.1,70,000-00 b. Compensation for mental agony Rs.2,00,000-00 c. Compensation for love and affection to the petitioners Rs.2,00,000-00 d. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.1,00,000-00 e. Compensation for future expectancy of life Rs.5,00,000-00 TOTAL Rs.12,00,000-00 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte. 06. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and contended that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. It was further contended 5 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 that the petitioners have to strictly prove the manner of accident, involvement of the crime bus in the accident and also the income of the deceased and that the petitioners and the 3rd respondent are the legal representatives of the deceased. It was also contended that the claim of compensation is more excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition. 07. 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 registration No.AP05 Z 5194 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?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1. One third party, who was stated to be an eye-witness to the accident, as P.W.2 and the Deputy Tahsildar, District Supply Office, Kurnool was examined as CW1. Exs.A1 to A5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 09. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Out of the said amount, the 1st petitioner was awarded Rs.8,00,000/-, 6 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 out of which, she 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 in any nationalized bank at Kakinada for a period of one year. The 2nd petitioner was awarded Rs.4,00,000/-, out of which, she was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at Kakinada for a period of one year. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased has taken voluntary retirement in the month of May, 2018 and was not a salaried employee at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is further contended that fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- without considering the voluntary retirement and without placing pension particulars on record is highly excessive. It is also contended that the addition of 40% towards future prospects to the pension amount does not arise and such addition is contrary to law. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 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 MACMA No.341 of 2022 POINT: 13. Though it is the contention of the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the co-passenger of the deceased, who was travelling in the same bus on the date of accident was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. He, being an eye-witness to the incident, has narrated the manner of incident and categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury to his neck and fell down in his seat. A perusal of the impugned award shows that nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit or discard his evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and Ex.A2-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the said finding. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the award, it can be observed that the deceased was working in the District Supply Office, Kurnool. As per Ex.X2, the gross salary of the deceased for the month of April, 2018 was shown as Rs.97,081/-. However, as per the 8 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 evidence of CW1/Deputy Tahsildar, District Civil supply Office, Kurnool, the deceased had taken voluntary retirement in the month of May, 2018 and the accident took place in the month of June, 2018. As there was a gap of one month between the date of voluntary retirement and the date of the accident, the claimants could not file the pension particulars of the deceased. However, the Tribunal, relying on Ex.X2, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.4,80,000/- per annum, which in the opinion of this Court is neither excessive nor arbitrary and requires no interference. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and calculated the annual contribution to the family at Rs. 3,20,000/- per annum (Rs.4,80,000 - 1/3rd ). Further, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, the Tribunal added 40% to the annual income of the deceased towards future prospects and thereby, his total annual income together with future prospects was rightly calculated at Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.3,20,000/- + 40%). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘9’, applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 58 years, as recorded in Ex.A3-Postmortem Report and Ex.A5-Inquest Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.40,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Thus, 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.341 of 2022 the total compensation comes to Rs.41,02,000/-. However, since the claim made in the petition was restricted to Rs.12,00,000/-, the Tribunal limited the award to the said amount. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal 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. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 23.02.2026 KGR