APHC010652492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, PARVATHIPURAM DEPOT, PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT. 2. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA 1. VADA MINNA, W/O HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. VADA APPANNA, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. VADA RAMU, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. SURAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT JALARI VEEDHI, VASUDEVAPURAM, SRIKAKULAM. 5. RITTA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O RITTA SEENU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLAYYAPETA, KATHERU, EAST GODAVARAI DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 517 OF APSRTC, REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, PARVATHIPURAM DEPOT, PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT(S) AND VADA MINNA, W/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. VADA APPANNA, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. VADA RAMU, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. SURAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT JALARI VEEDHI, VASUDEVAPURAM, RITTA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O RITTA SEENU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLAYYAPETA, KATHERU, EAST GODAVARAI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 517 OF 2022 APSRTC, REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, PARVATHIPURAM APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS ...APPELLANT(S) LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, VADA APPANNA, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, VADA RAMU, S/O LATE BARIKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGURU VILLAGE, GARUGUBILI MANDAL, SURAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT JALARI VEEDHI, VASUDEVAPURAM, RITTA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O RITTA SEENU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLAYYAPETA, KATHERU, EAST 2 6. KONDAGORRI KISHORE, S/O CHINNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS NO.AP-35-Z-0060, RESIDING AT MAMIDIMANUGUDA VILLAGE, KURUPAM MANADAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. (6TH RESPONDENT NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following Judgment: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 15.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Vada Adamma in a motor accident that occurred on 02.12.2018. 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 is mother in-law of Petitioner No.1; Paternal and maternal grandmother of Petitioners No. 2 to 4 and mother of Petitioner No.5. On 02.12.2018 at about 18.15 hrs, while the deceased Vada Adamma was crossing the road at Thotapalli Devasthanam by walk to go to Venkateswara 3 Temple for begging, at that time the Respondent No.1 drove the RTC bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 0060 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased, the bus ran over the waist, crushed her body into pieces and she died on the spot. A case was registered by the Police. Since death of the deceased in a motor accident, the Petitioners/ Claimants filed the Claim Petition. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements denying material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the Respondent No.1. The compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive. As such, the Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased Vada Adamma, is due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 0060 by its driver i.e R.1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the Petitioners/ Claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. 4 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.2 and 3, awarding compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondents No.2 and 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within two months from the date of the order. The claim in respect of Petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the RTC driver of the bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 0060 which resulted in the death of Vada Ademma. In fact, the deceased tried to cross the road without observing the traffic on the road, dashed against the RTC bus, fell down and died on the spot. Therefore, the driver of RTC bus is not responsible for the accident. There is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was aged 70 years and was dependent on the paternal and maternal grandsons of the deceased. But the Tribunal granted compensation to the Petitioners/ Claimants 1 and 5 of the deceased without any Legal Representatives Certificate. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 11. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-2 who is an eye witness to the said accident, who categorically deposed that while the deceased was crossing the road at Thotapalli Devasthanam by walk, meanwhile Respondent No.1 driven the RTC bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 0060 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her as a result, the bus ran over her waist, she was crushed; her body was cut into pieces and died on the spot. Coupled with Ex.A1- True copy of FIR; Ex.A5 – True copy of Charge Sheet would disclose that after due investigation the Police has registered a case against the driver of RTC bus in Crime No. 125 of 2018 under Section 304-A of IPC, the Tribunal, having considered the matter in entirety, came to the conclusion that the claimants could prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by the Respondent No.1 and no interference is warranted with the said finding of the Tribunal. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the Claimants contended that the deceased was a begger and earning Rs. 300/- per day, but no document was filed to substantiate their plea, except oral testimony of PW-1. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal assessed Rs. 100/- per day i.e Rs. 3,000/- per month as income of the 6 deceased in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandran v. Mukesh Kumar”1, which is just and proper. As the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum (Rs. 3,000/- x 12), ad after deducting the personal expenses of 1/4th of the deceased, her annual income would be Rs. 27,000/- (Rs. 36,000/- x 1/4th = Rs. 9,000/-) and after deducting Rs. 9,000/- from Rs. 36,000/-, it would be Rs. 27,000/-. The age of the deceased is 70 years and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘5’ is applicable, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.36,000/- p.a. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra) the Claimants No.1 and 5 would be entitled to Rs.1,35,000/- towards dependency/ future income; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.2,05,000/-. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimants No.1 and 5 would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- 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 Claimants No.1 and 5. 13. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 1 2021(6) ALT 116 (SC) 2 2009 ACJ 1298 7 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.02.2026 KK