APHC010489212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 367/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGIONAL MANAGER, RTC DEPOT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PENDYALA SEETHALU, W/O. RAMANJANEYA CHOWDARY, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-63/1, DARAVARAM VILLAGE,CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, NIDADAVOLE. 2. PENDYALA DHANARAJU, S/O. LAKSHMANAARAO, 49 YEARS, R/O, D.NO.1-63/1, DARAVARAM VILLAGE, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT, 3. PENDYALA SRIDEVI, W/O. DHANARAJU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.-1-63/1, DARAVARAM VILLAGE, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 4. ANTHAM KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. RAMBABU, 41 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRT.C R/O. NIDADAVOLE DEPOT, NIDADAVOLE, WQST GODAVARI DSITRICT. (R4 NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 105 of 2019, dated 21.03.2022, on the file of Motor 2 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari Kovvur 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 condone the delay of 52 days in filing the above M.A.C.M.A. in M.V.O.P. No. 105 of 2019, dt. 21-03-2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari Kovvur IA NO: 2 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 dt. 21-03-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. 105 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari Kovvur 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 permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount credited to the M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2019 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Cum-IX Additional District Court, Kovvur as per the Orders of this Hon'ble Court in I.A.No.02 of 2022 in MACMA. No.367 of 2022, dated 22-09-2022, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The APSRTC has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 21.03.2022passed in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Two thousand only) to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of Rs.23,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Pendyala Ramanjaneya Chowdary, in a motor accident that occurred on 23.04.2019. 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, in brief, is as follows: a) On 23.04.2019 morning the deceased was started at his house to go to Nidadavole on his motorcycle, while on the journey at about 6.30 a.m. the deceased reached near Chitti Ceruvu Centre at Nidadavole, at the same time the 1st respondent drove the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2227 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and came in wrong side and dashed the motor cycle in opposite direction. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and he received grievous injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Sai Hospital at Rajahmundry, while undergoing treatment the deceased was died on 24.04.2019 at about 1.25 a.m. At the time of accident the deceased was riding his motorcycle carefully at a normal speed on the left 4 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 side of the road, whereas the 1st respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. A case in Crime No.99 of 2019 was registered under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the bus by the Station House Officer, Nidadavole Police Station. Subsequently, after the death of the deceased, the police altered the Secton of law from Secton 338 of IPC to Section 304-A IPC. 04. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 24 years, hale and healthy, and was cultivating land on lease and earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month, which he was contributing for the welfare of the family. The claimants, being dependents, lost the source of income and the consortium of the 1stpetitioner. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.23,00,000/-. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 06. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed its written statement denying the material averments, including rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. It was contended that the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control, and dashed against the stationed bus. It was further contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties and the petition is bad for non-joinder. The income and occupation of the deceased were also denied, and it was contended that the claim is excessive. 5 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 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 R.1, driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2227 on 23-04- 2019 and caused death of Pendyala Ramanjaneya Chowdary? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom? 3. To what relief? 08. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 09. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with future interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R2, though both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Out of compensation amount of Rs.15,82,000/-. Rs.8,82,000/- is awarded to 1st petitioner-wife, and Rs.3,50,000/- each is awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3, who are the parents of deceased. The petitioners 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts. Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.10,000/-.” 6 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/APSRTC preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month in the absence of documentary evidence, and further erred in not appreciating the contributory negligence of the deceased who allegedly drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. 11. Heard K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a perusal of the impugned award, it can be observed that the 1st claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, examined herself as P.W.1; however, she is not an eyewitness to the accident. The claimants also examined P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, and who categorically deposed that on 23.04.2019 morning, he was standing at his workshop at about 6.30 a.m., and noticed the deceased coming on a motorcycle from Pangili side towards Nidadavole side. At the same time, an APSRTC bus proceeding from Nidadavole towards Pangidi was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came on the wrong side, and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down, sustained 7 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 injuries, and became unconscious. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Nidadavole, and later he came to know that the deceased died while undergoing treatment. In his evidence, he also mentioned the bus number as AP 20 Z 2227. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, coupled with Ex.A2/inquest report, which establishes that the RTC bus dashed the motor bike of the deceased coming from the opposite direction and caused the accident resulting in injuries and death, and Ex.A5/attested copy of charge sheet in Crime No.99 of 2019, wherein initially a case was registered under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., the 1st respondent and later, vide Ex.A6, the section of law was altered to Section 304-A IPC, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and accordingly answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. 14. With regard to the quantum, the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by cultivating land on lease; however, in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500 × 12). As the deceased was aged about 24 years as per Ex.A2/inquest report and Ex.A3/postmortem report, and as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, after adding 40% towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.90,000 + Rs.36,000). Since the number of dependents is three, 1/3rd of 12009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 the earnings was deducted towards personal expenditure. Then the family contribution comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.1,26,000 – Rs.42,000). Therefore, after applying the relevant multiplier ‘18’ for the age of 24 years, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.84,000 × 18), which is just and proper and needs no interference. 15. With regard to other heads of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium in favour of petitioner No.1 alone, who is the wife of the deceased. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of filial consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased, though they are entitled to the same in view of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 towards loss of consortium. 16. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of earnings Rs.15,12,000/- Rs.15,12,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 9 VS,J MACMA No.367 of 2022 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Total Rs.15,82,000/- Rs.16,62,000/- 17. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the order dated 21.03.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, W.G., Kovvur is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,62,000/- from Rs.15,82,000/- with 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 17.03.2026 KGR