APHC010652222016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1248/2016 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK ANISHA SULTANA 7 OTHERS, W/O. LATE KHAJA MOHIDDIN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, D.NO.8-14-69, KOPPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK BHASHI, S/O. LATE KHAJA MOHIDDIN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, STUDENT, D.NO. 8-14-69, KOPPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK FARWEZ, S/O. LATE KHAJA MOHIDDIN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 1 YEARS, MOTHER'S PROTECTION, D.NO.8-14-69, KOPPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS REP.BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E., 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN) 4. SHAIK FATIMUNNISA DIED, (PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHAIK MASTAN) 5. SHAIK MASTAN BASTAN BABA, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO. 87-14-69, KOPPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 6. SMT SHAIK MOBINA SULTANA, W/O. SHAIK JANI BASHA, MUSLIM, AGED 32 YEARS, D.NO. 87-14-69, KOPPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 7. SMT REHANA SULTANA, W/O. SHAIK JANI BASHA, MUSLIM, AGED 32 YEARS D.NO.87-14-69, KOPUPULAVARI STREET, WINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 8. PEDAPUDI BABULU, S/O. RAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 YEARS, DRIVER APSRTC, R/O. NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.8 IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 1-6-2015 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal-Cum- XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District in MVOP.No.37 of 2013 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 5791 OF 2015 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 to condone the delay of 29 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order and Decree dated 1-6-2015 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District in MVOP.No.37 of 2013 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 116 OF 2016 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree dated 1-6-2015 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal Cum XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District in MVOP.No.37 of 2013 including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri G.Gopinath, learned counsel representing Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation/appellant, and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 1. Embittered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2013, dated 01.06.2015, the present appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APSRTC”), challenging the Award of Rs.7,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The parties are arrayed as they were before the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is filed by the Corporation, contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.7,98,000/- without there being any acceptable evidence on record specifically when the accident was not proved by the claimants regarding rash and negligent driving. The contentions, which are germane to decide the case as contended before the Tribunal in the M.V.O.P. filed by the claimants, have to be looked into. 4. The petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, r/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization. Initially, the petition was numbered as M.V.O.P.No.359 of 2010 and later it was transferred to the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and the same was renumbered as M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2013. 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. During the pendency of the petition, the 4th petitioner died and her legal representatives were impleaded as petitioners 5 to 7. 6. The case before the Tribunal is that on 24.09.2009 at about 01.00 hours, while Shaik Khaja Mohiddin (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was travelling by a bus bearing No.AP28Z3178 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, driven by the 1st respondent, and when it reached Paritala village, the bus dashed a lorry resulting the death of the deceased instantaneously. Some of the passengers also received injuries. The deceased was shifted to D.V.R. Community Health Centre, Nandigama, where the doctors declared him as dead. Basing on the report of the brother of the deceased by name Mastan @ Mastan Baba, Kanchikacherla Police registered Crime No.176 of 2009 under Sections 337, 304-A of IPC and the Motor Vehicles Inspector gave his opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. 7. The deceased was working as Manager in Baji Shamiyana, Vijayawada, and was earning Rs.9,500/- per month and due to the sudden and premature death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to hardship and mental agony. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of death and as the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle with rash and negligent manner, the accident occurred, and the petitioners filed the petition for compensation. 8. In oppugnation to the said petition, the 2nd respondent filed counter and Adoption Memo was filed by the 1st respondent adopting the same counter averments. While denying the averments in the counter, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the sudden stopping of the lorry without giving any indication and without taking left margin and that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent and only for the 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 reasons stated, the accident has occurred and that the respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Considering the said contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the deceased Khaja Mohiddin died in a motor accident occurred on 24.9.2009 at 01.00 hours near Paritala village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3178? ii. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? iv. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the claimants, Exs.A1 to A6 were marked and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is the attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A3 is the attested copy of postmortem report, Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of driving license of the 1st respondent, Ex.A5 is the salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.A6 is the Death Certificate of the 4th petitioner. 11. The Tribunal, while answering issue No.1 relating to the contention of rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent, observed that the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW2 and in her evidence reiterated the averments made in the affidavit, asserting that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. RW1, the driver, was examined and supported his version as stated in the counter. He deposed that the accident occurred due to a lorry which was suddenly stopped on the National Highway without giving any signal, and that the lorry driver had failed to take necessary precautions. He further stated that he had taken all precautions to avoid the accident. It was also contended in the counter that the police, in collusion with local people, had filed the charge 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 sheet against him. In response to the said contentions, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the driver ought to have maintained a safe distance even if the lorry had stopped suddenly. The Tribunal further observed that, in such circumstances, the accident could not have been avoided, which clearly indicates rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the issue was answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 12. While coming to issue No.2, there is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased as 35 years, which is substantiated by the inquest report, Ex.A2 and the postmortem report, Ex.A3, which supports that the age of the deceased was 35 at the time of accident. 13. When coming to the income of the deceased, the petitioners got marked the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased stating that he used to draw Rs.9,500/- per month and the salary certificate was marked as Ex.A5. The said certificate was not accepted by the Tribunal only on the ground that except marking Ex.A5, there is no attempt made by the petitioners to examine the concerned person, who has issued the certificate and since it was issued by a private authority and not a Government Agency, the certificate cannot be taken as authentic and estimated the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. 14. The income, which is estimated as Rs.6,000/- per month by the Tribunal, is found to be erroneous since there is no reasoning by the Tribunal to come to such a conclusion and cannot disbelieve the said exhibit only on the ground that the certificate was issued by a private authority and not a Government Agency. This Court finds not even an effort made by the Tribunal to see whether the respondents made any effort to cross-examine PW2, who got marked Ex.A5 and particularly, in the absence of any contra evidence, it would not be justified on the part of the Tribunal to come to such a conclusion, 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month on mere assumption. 15. When a concerned person, who is the employer of the deceased issued a certificate fortifying that the deceased was drawing Rs.9,500/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have believed the said certificate and in the case or event, the certificate is deemed to be suspicious, the Tribunal should have given cogent reasons for such disbelieving and in the absence of reasoning, confirming the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version and hence, the finding of the Tribunal to that effect is liable to be set aside as erroneous in limine. 16. While answering issue No.3, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the other aspects, such as personal and living expenses and deducted 1/3rd of his income i.e., Rs.24,000/- (Rs.72,000 x 1/3). After deducting the said amount, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.72,000 – Rs.24,000). The multiplier of ‟16 adopted by the Tribunal is justified and the compensation derived was Rs.7,68,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 16). Additionally, Rs.20,000/- was awarded to the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In totality, the petitioners were awarded Rs.7,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation was directed to be paid by the 2nd respondent considering the doctrine of vicarious liability since the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and as the 2nd respondent is the one to pay the compensation ultimately, the issue was answered accordingly, holding the 2nd respondent liable to pay the compensation. 17. As stated supra, except for the modification, regarding the estimation of income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month by this Court instead of Rs.6,000/-, the rest of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal holds good and needs no interference. 8 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1248 of 2016 18. In view of the above findings of this Court, the compensation after the observations made above will be as follows: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Income per month Rs.9,500/- 2. Annual income Rs.9,500 x 12 = Rs.1,14,000/- 3. 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses Rs.38,000/- (Rs.1,14,000 x 1/3) 4. Contribution to the family Rs.76,000/- (Rs.1,14,000 – Rs.38,000) 5. After applying multiplier „16‟ Rs.12,16,000/- (Rs.76,000 x 16) 6. Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.12,46,000/- 19. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2013, is hereby modified, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,98,000/- to Rs.12,46,000/-, while the other part of the judgment is not interfered and the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the petitioners/claimants are not entitled for any interest on the enhanced compensation. 20. In fine, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, modifying the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 18-03-2026 BMS