APHC010450112022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 330/2022 Between: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,, APSRTC, HYDERABAD (NOW AT PNBS, RTC HOUSE, VIJAYDWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT) ...APPELLANT AND 1. YELLAVULA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE ANJANEYULU, AGE-33 YEARS, HINDU, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. SURVEYREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. YELLAVULA PAVAN, S/O. LATE ANJANEYULU, AGE- 15 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT, RIO. SURVEYREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. YELLAVULA SRAVANI, D/O. LATE ANJANEYULU, AGE- 13 YEARS, HINDU,, STUDENT, R/O. SURVEYREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. TAPALA MURALI, S/O. MUNI RATNAM, HINDU, AGE- 41 YEARS, DRIVER OF RTC BUS BEARING NO.AP 03Z 5149, MADIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, JADARNARRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. YELLAVULA SANJEEVA RAO DIED, , S/O VEERASWAMY, AGE- 65 YEARS, RIO. SURVEYREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. YELLAVULA SAMRAJYAM, , W/O LATE SANJEEVA RAO, HINDU, AGE- 47 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SURVEYREDDYPALEM 2 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASANI DISTRICT. 7. YELLAVULA KOTESWARAMMA DADDALA KOTESWARAMMA, W/O. MALA KONDAIAH, D/O. LATE Y.SANJEEVA RAO, HINDU, AGE-27 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SURVEYREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree dated 09-06-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 105 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-coin-Principal District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District for the following among other- 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 09-06-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 105 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District including of execution proceedings. pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D V SASIDHAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 J U D G M E N T: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 09.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2017 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) to the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, as per their claim, on account of the death of the deceased Yellavula Anjaneyulu in a motor accident that occurred on 30.08.2016. 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, in brief, is as follows: The deceased Yellavula Anjaneyulu was resident of Survereddypalem Village and on 30.08.2016, deceased boarded an auto at Ongole to reach Vallur village. While crossing the road at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased met with an accident on the National Highway near NRL Petrol Bunk between Pellur and Vallur villages due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5149 by respondent No.2. On receipt of a complaint, Ongole Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No.574 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC against respondent No.2/driver of bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5149. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 36 years and was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was working as a mason and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing 4 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 the same towards the maintenance of his family. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is minor son and petitioner No.3 is the minor daughter of the deceased. Mother of the deceased viz., Yellavula Koteswaramma was pre- deceased to the deceased and after her death, respondent No.3/father of the deceased contracted second marriage and gave birth to respondent No.5. As respondent No.3 was not cooperating with the petitioners in pursuing the litigation, as such, he was shown as a respondent in the petition. However, during pendency of the petition, respondent No.3 died and respondent No.4/second wife of respondent No.3 and respondent No.5/daughter were brought on record as legal representatives of respondent No.3 vide orders in I.A.No.610 of 2018, dated 17.05.2018. It was contended that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family consisting of his wife and two minor children, and due to his untimely death, they lost both financial support and affection. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 05. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the allegations with regard to the date, time, place and manner of the accident and put the petitioners to strict proof thereof. It was specifically contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the alleged accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road without following traffic rules. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken all precautions while driving the bus and that the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The 5 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether deceased Yellavula Anjaneyulu died in the accident occurred on 30.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5149 by its driver/Respondent No.2 or was there any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in crossing the road at the time of accident? 2. Whether the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.574 of 2016 of Ongole Taluk Police Station; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the Post-mortem examination report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Charge Sheet. The 2nd respondent /driver of bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5149 examined himself as RW.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with interest and costs against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till 6 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 realization. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of the order along with interest. On such deposit, Petitioner No.1 was awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with costs and interest and was permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit for two years in any Nationalized Bank. Petitioners No.2 and 3/minor children were awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- each and the same was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank in their respective names till they attain majority, with liberty to petitioner No.1 to withdraw the yearly interest for their welfare. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the deceased suddenly crossed the road and met with the accident and that the driver of the bus was not negligent. It was further contended that in the absence of any documentary proof of income, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and in applying the multiplier of ‘15’ for the age group of 36 years. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.14,00,000/- despite contributory negligence and that the compensation awarded was excessive and, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Mr.D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the claimants. 7 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. It is contended by the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. However, the record discloses that P.W.2 who is eye-witness to the accident got examined on behalf of the claimants who categorically deposed that while he and one K.Chennam Raju were proceeding on their motorcycle from Tangutur to Pellur, when they stopped their vehicle for filling petrol at NRL Petrol Bunk by the side of the National Highway, the deceased was waiting to cross the road, on observing the traffic of vehicles and at that time, the RTC bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5149, which was proceeding towards Nellore from Ongole, driven by the 2nd respondent/driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, hit the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Though the driver of the APSRTC bus was examined as RW1, he simply denied negligence on his part for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, held that the contention of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be accepted that the alleged accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness coupled with Ex.A1-copy of the F.I.R. registered in connection with the 8 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 accident and Ex.A4-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the APSRTC bus, the Tribunal 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. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a mason, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence on record with regard to actual income and avocation of the deceased, basing on normal wage standards, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and his annual income was accordingly calculated at Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 12), which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. Further, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 1 , 40% of the income was added towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 36 years and the total annual income was computed at Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.96,000/- + 40%). After deducting three-fourth towards personal and living expenses, the amount comes to Rs.1,00,800/- per annum (Rs.1,34,400/- - 3/4th) . Upon applying multiplier of ‘15’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.1,00,800 X 15) towards loss of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.330 of 2022 dependency. Further, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total, Rs.15,82,000/-. Though the total compensation amounted to Rs.15,82,000/-, since the claim was restricted by the petitioners to Rs.14,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded the said amount, which cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. Therefore, 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. 14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 16.02.2026 KGR