1 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. APHC010459182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 364/2022 Between: 1. AVANIGADDA KANAKA DURGA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1/212, PEDAPROLU VILLAGE, MOPIDEVI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. AVANIGADDA ACHIYYA, (DIED), S/O POTHU RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1/212, PEDAPROLU VILLAGE, MOPIDEVI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (DIED AS PER LR'S 3 TO 5) 3. AVANIGADDA SESHAMMA, W/O. POTHURAJU, AGED 79 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-65, TADIGADAPA, PENAMULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. AVANIGADDA VENKATA RATNAM, S/O. ACHIYYA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-65, TADIGADAPA, PENAMULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 5. AVANIGADDA BALARAJU, S/O. ACHIYYA, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-65, TADIGADAPA, PENAMULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT PETITIONERS NO. 3 TO 5 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR'S OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.2/2025 ...APPELLANT(S) 2 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. AND 1. MADDALI BALA PRASAD, S/O ANJANEYULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DRIVER OF A.P.S.R.T.C, R/O KORAMUKKUVANIPURAM, PAMARRU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. PANDIT NEHRU BUS TERMINAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. R S MANIDHAR PINGALI 2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 364/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the claimants/Petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IX Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Krishna, Machilipatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.527 of 2016 dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- but, restricted the award to an amount of Rs.3,03,500/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as claimants/Petitioners; and Respondents as Respondents. 2. The petitioners filed a petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Avanigadd Madhu, son of Achiyya, who died in a motor vehicle accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.527 of 2016 are that – the petitioners are mother and father respectively of the deceased – 4 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. Avanigadda Madhu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”). The deceased was aged 19 years, unmarried, hale and healthy as on the date of accident. i. On 06.07.2016 at about 3.30 P.M the deceased – Madhu went to Poranki village on TVS motor Cycle bearing No.AP16 CH 1435 belongs to Chillies Restaurant for delivery of some articles and returning to Chillies Restaurant, at that time, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4089 driven by its driver i.e., 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and without blowing horn, dashed in front port of motor cycle of deceased, due to which, deceased sustained grievous multiple bleeding injuries all over his body, shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment and while undergoing treatment in Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, deceased was died on 14.07.2016, then his dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for postmortem examination. On receipt of hospital intimation, a case in Cr.No.385 of 2016 was registered in Penamalur police station against 1st respondent – driver. 1st respondent is the driver of crime vehicle and 2nd respondent is owner of the vehicle. Thus, both respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4. 1st respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that there is no fault on the part of 1st respondent in driving the vehicle and the deceased without following the traffic rules, came against this respondent‟s vehicle in opposite direction, without hearing and observing the 5 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. horn blown by 1st respondent, hit the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4089. The deceased has no valid license to drive motor cycle and he died due to shock only but not due to accident. 1st respondent submitted that he is having valid driving license and was well experienced and trained person in driving the vehicle as trained by the Corporation Authorities and there was no remark on his part in discharging his duties and he is an able man to drive the passenger vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. 2nd Respondent/APSRTC filed counter denying the petition averments and contended that the deceased died not due to accident arising out of APSRTC bus No.AP11 Z 4089, the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is excessive. The deceased drove his motor cycle bearing No.AP16 CH 1435 in jig-jag manner, without observing traffic rules and out of confusion, the deceased dashed APSRTC bus. The deceased drove the motor cycle without having any driving license and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the tribunal for trial:- 1) Whether the 1st respondent drove the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4089 in a rash or negligent manner at the time and place of pleaded 6 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. accident, in which the deceased by name Avanigadda Madhu succumbed to injuries? 2) Whether petitioners are entitled to get any amount as compensation from the respondents? 3) If so, to how much amount? 4) To what relief? 7. To prove the case of petitioners, 1st petitioner – Avanigadda Kanaka Durga got examined as P.W.1, Dr. U.Srilakshmi got examined as P.W.2 and an eyewitness to the accident by name Arepalli Nagaraju got examined as P.W.3, and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 – bunch of medical bills in original, Ex.A.5 – case sheet in original. On behalf of respondents, none were examined and no documents marked. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioners/claimants as well as respondents, upon considering oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal awarded total compensation amount of Rs.6,07,000/- but as the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased, 50% of the amount was deducted and awarded 50% of the compensation amount of Rs.3,03,500/-, together with interest at 7.5% per annum, directing the 7 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay within two (02) months from the date of order, along with costs. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the petitioners have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the claimants got examined P.W.3 – Mr. R.Nagaraju who was an eyewitness to the accident, who categorically deposed that on 06.07.2016 at about 3.30 hours while he was standing in main road of Vijayawada to Machilipatnam near KCP colony, the deceased drove his moped. 1st respondent drove his APSRTC by bearing No.AP11 Z 4089 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased vehicle, as such, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury. Deceased was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital and at the time of accident he was present at the spot. In spite of said evidence, though there is no contrary evidence adduced on behalf of respondents, the Tribunal attributed that the deceased has also contributed for the said accident and accordingly deducted 50% of the awarded amount for the contributory negligence of the deceased and not granted full compensation amount. The tribunal failed to take note that the deceased was working in a restaurant and used to earn Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month but simply taken Rs.4,000/- per month and not awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.50,000/- towards damages to clothing, articles and vehicle, and awarded meager amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation 8 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. amount and to set aside the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2018 in MVOP No.527 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum IX Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Krishna, Machilipatnam. 10. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents and perused the material in record. 11. Now the point for determination is – Whether the order/award passed by the tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the award, it can be observed that claimant No.1 being the mother of the deceased, got examined herself as P.W.1, who deposed that on 06.07.2016 in the evening at about 3.30 p.m, her son proceeded on the TVS motorcycle bearing number AP 16 CH 1435 belonging to the owner of the restaurant, for delivery of articles in Poranki village and while returning to the hotel, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 4098 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and without following traffic rules and dashed the front side of the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous multiple injuries all over the body and the persons, who witnessed the said incident shifted the deceased to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, for treatment. On receipt of the information sent by the hospital authorities, the police of Penamaluru came and recorded the statement of the husband of P.W.1. Basing on which, police registered a case in Crime 9 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. No.385 of 2016 under Section 337 of I.P.C. However, the injured while undergoing treatment died in the hospital after 8 days. 13. In support of the case of the claimants, they got examined P.W.3, who is the eyewitness to the accident. P.W.3 categorically stated that on 06.07.2016 at about 03.30 hours while he was standing on the main road of Vijayawada to Machilipatnam near KCP colony, the deceased drove his moped, respondent No.1 drove his RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4089 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped of the deceased, as such deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury. Though P.W.3 supported the version of P.W.1, the Tribunal disbelieved his version as he is an interested witness and held that the deceased admittedly drove two-wheeler without driving license, which amounts to violation of road traffic rules. In view of the same, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 holding that there is contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers, which needs no interference. 14. Now, coming to the earnings of the deceased, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month by working in restaurant. However, in the absence of any evidence to substantiate their contention, the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. 10 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. 15. In the absence of any evidence to establish the earnings of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased as per the notified Minimum Wages Rules which are applicable with effect from 01.04.2016. If the wages are fixed as per the notified minimum wages rules, an unskilled workman is entitled for Rs.211/- per day. If the same is taken into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,330/-. As the deceased is a bachelor as on the date of the accident, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 50%, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3,165/- (Rs.6,330 – Rs.3,165). 16. Though the deceased is aged 19 years as per Ex.A.2 Postmortem report, the Tribunal failed to add 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”, if the same is added, monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,431/-. (Rs.3,165+1266). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.53,172/- (Rs.4,431 X 12). Though appropriate multiplier to the age group of 15-20 years is ‟18‟ as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier as „15‟ years. If multiplier „18‟ is applied, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.53,172 X18) Rs.9,57,096/-. 1 2018 ACJ 2782 2 2009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. 17. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.1,37,000/- towards medical expenses, which needs no interference. 18. As the tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, total compensation assessed by this Court is Rs.12,19,096/-. 19. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: Sl. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now awarded by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Loss of dependency 3,60,000-00 9,57,096-00 2. Towards Funeral Expenses 10,000-00 10,000-00 3. Towards loss of estate -- 15,000-00 4. Towards loss of love and affection 1,00,000-00 1,00,000-00 5. Medical expenses 1,37,000-00 1,37,000-00 Total Rs.6,07,000-00 Rs.12,19,096-00 20. In view of the above discussion, as the accident has occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, 50% of the amount is to be deducted. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.6,09,548/- (Rs.12,19,096-Rs.6,09,548) only. 21. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,03,500/- to Rs.6,09,548/- with 12 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 02.03.2026. 13 MACMA NO.364/2022 VS,J. 266 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 364/2022 DATED 02.03.2026 KS