APHC010495042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. THE APSRTC, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA. 1. GOLLA SUJATHA, W/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. 2. GOLLA CHANDANA, D/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR. 3. GOLLA BASAPPA GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, S/O LATE GADDAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. 4. GOLLA KULUMALA PADMAVATHI GOLLA PADMA, W/O GOLLA BASAPPA @ GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS BEING MINORS REP.BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) 5. JANGALI BHEEMANNA, S/O LATE J.HANUMANTHAPAA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, RAYADURGAM DEPOT, R/O OBULACHARI ROAD, RAYADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 376 PSRTC, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND GOLLA SUJATHA, W/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR GOLLA CHANDANA, D/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, AGED 6 YEARS, GOLLA BASAPPA GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, S/O LATE GADDAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. GOLLA KULUMALA PADMAVATHI GOLLA PADMA, W/O GOLLA @ GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS BEING MINORS REP.BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MOTHER AND NATURAL JANGALI BHEEMANNA, S/O LATE J.HANUMANTHAPAA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, RAYADURGAM DEPOT, R/O OBULACHARI ROAD, RAYADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPUR ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 376 OF 2022 CUM-MANAGING ...APPELLANT GOLLA SUJATHA, W/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR GOLLA CHANDANA, D/O LATE GOLLA RAGHU, AGED 6 YEARS, GOLLA BASAPPA GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, S/O LATE GADDAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM GOLLA KULUMALA PADMAVATHI GOLLA PADMA, W/O GOLLA @ GOLLA TENKAYALA BASAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/4, HANUMAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS BEING MINORS REP.BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MOTHER AND NATURAL JANGALI BHEEMANNA, S/O LATE J.HANUMANTHAPAA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, RAYADURGAM DEPOT, R/O OBULACHARI ROAD, RAYADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPUR ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER The Court made the following: The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 08.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.79 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ii Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,78,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Golla Raghu, in a motor accident that occurred on 10.07.2017. 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: The deceased Golla Raghu was living as an auto driver. On 10.07.2017 the deceased and his brother Golla Balaram left their village Hanumapuram for Kulumala Village at 13.30 hrs in the auto bearing No. AP 21 TB 1644 belongs to their villager Pujari Viswanath being driven by deceased in or to bring his wife Sujatha to Hanumapuram Village. On the way to Kulumala Village, when their auto was proceeding near St.John’s Engineering College, after crossing Yerrakota Village at 14.15 hrs, Respondent No.1 being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 02 Z 0160, which was proceeding towards Yemmiganur from Kurnool side, drove the bus in a rash and negligent 3 manner with high speed and lost control over the speed of the bus and dashed against the opposite coming auto on the left side of the road. As a result, the deceased Golla Raghu received severe injuries and died on the spot. The police registered a case in Crime No.82 of 2017 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 remained exparte. 5. Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a counter resisting the claim of the Claimants and later remained exparte. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 02 Z 0160 and it resulted in the death of the deceased Golla Raghu? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. 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, none was examined and no documents were marked. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the Claimants 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.10,78,000/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on 4 the said amount from the date 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.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the claimants failed to establish negligent driving on the part of the RTC driver of bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact that evidently at the time of accident the deceased was travelling in an Auto, the driver of auto driven the auto with rash and negligent manner, tried to over take the bus and in between auto driver lost his control and hit the bus, as such the accident was occurred, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously assed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.63,000/-per annum 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? 5 POINT: 12. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-2, who is an eye-witness to the said accident, who categorically deposed that on 10.07.2017 at 10.00 a.m, he along with his friend Mr. Nanda Kishore, who are working as collection executives in Sreeram Finance were proceeding to Kodumur on his motorcycle for collection. At 2.15 p.m, when they reached near St. John’s Engineering College at Yerrakota Village, they have noticed that Respondent No.1 being the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 02 Z 0160 came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, while coming from Kurnool towards Yemmiganur and dashed the auto bearing No. AP 21 TB 1644, in which the deceased Golla Raghu and Golla Balaram were travelling. As a result, the deceased Golla Raghu died on the spot and Golla Balaram received bleeding head injury. Coupled with Ex.A5 i.e C.C of Charge Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, which discloses that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus, the Tribunal answered the issue No.1 in favour of the Claimants. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant would mainly contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 31 years as on the date of accident. However, on perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A5 Certified copy of Charge Sheet and Ex.A3 post mortem report and came to a conclusion that the deceased age is 31 years. In the Charge Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, it is mentioned 6 that the deceased was living by running a Auto and in the absence of any documentary evidence, considering the socio-economic background of the deceased and age of the deceased, the income of the deceased is notionally fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was driver of the auto and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence and considering the socio economic background of the Petitioner and age of the deceased as 31 years, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is just and proper. 15. As the deceased was self-employed, 40% of his income i.e., Rs.250/- was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby his annual income was calculated as Rs.63,000/- (Rs.5,250/- x 12). After deducting 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 31 years. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 7 16. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimant and as well as exhibits relied on by him has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 10,78,000/- 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. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.02.2026 KK