1 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010695022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 552/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLDING OFFICE AT X ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Y NARAYANA, S/O Y. GANGAIAH, HINDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,DEPENDENT. 2. Y PADAMAVATI, W/O Y. NARAYANA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DEPENDENT. 3. Y RAVI SANKAR, S/O Y. NARAYANA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DEPENDENT. 4. Y JAYA SANKAR, S/O Y. NARAYANA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DEPENDENT. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO 2-63, S.N. PURAM, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2-181, S.N. PURAM JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 5. N RAJEEV GANDHI NAIDU, S/O N. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 3-48, VEMURU, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (5TH RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PART). ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VMR LEGAL The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 552/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant/ 2nd Respondent – Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC), represented by is Managing Director, being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.06.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.17 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, awarding Rs.8,26,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellant herein as 2ndRespondent and Respondents No.1 to 4 herein as petitioners, and Respondent No.5 herein as 1st Respondent. 2. The claim petitioners being father, mother and brothers of the deceased – Himagiri, filed claim petition under section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rules 455 and 475 of A.P Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest and costs, for the death of Y.Hemagiri in a motor vehicle accident. 4 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal are that - at the time of the accident the deceased – Himagiri was aged about 20 years, he was hale and healthy, working as an electrician and getting income of Rs.500/- per day and used to contribute the same to the family. i. On 06.11.2016 at about 8.40 p.m the deceased along with his friends was going on a Scooty Pep Plus bearing No.AP03-AF-7307.At that time, the first respondent being the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-2-6701 came in a rash and negligent manner on Karakambadı-Tirupati road near Ramee Guest Line Days Hotel, Reddigunta and drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooty Pep plus, as a result, the persons travelling on the Scooty Pep Plus totally three in number fell down on the road. Himagiri sustained severe bleeding injuries. The pillion riders P.Hemanth Kumar and T.Murugan have sustained grievous injuries. The said Himagiri died while shifting to SVIMS hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. 4. Brief averments of the counter filed by the 1st respondent are that: the manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is not true and correct. The accident occurred due to the utter negligence of the deceased and other two pillion riders. In addition to that, the deceased and pillion riders were in drunken condition and ridden the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. The claim of the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and unsustainable. The 1strespondent 5 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. has got valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident and he has also furnished all the documents to the police concerned. The deceased was not having valid driving license and it clearly evident that due to the sole negligence of the deceased only the accident had occurred. 5. Brief averments of the counter filed by 2ndrespondent APSRTC are that: the allegations in the petition with regard to the age and income of the deceased and the manner of the accident are denied. The accident occurred on head on collision between two vehicles and the owner and insurer of Scooty Pep Plus are necessary parties. Therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On 06.11.2016 the first respondent was proceeding from Tiruchanur to Mangalam and at about 20.40 hours after passing Bonthalamuna temple, the road was blocked towards left side due to road repair and he has taken right side and going adjacent to the divider and noticed that one Scooty was coming in opposite direction in a zig zag manner and the rider of the Scooty riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and totally three persons were travelling and in the meanwhile, the first respondent observed the same and apprehending danger, he stopped the bus.But, the rider of the Scooty came in high speed and not able to control his vehicle, hit the stationed bus near the front left lower portion of the bus and the said three persons who were traveling on the scooty were fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of the Scooty i.e., the 6 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. deceased Himagiri. The deceased was not having valid driving license and he was driving the Scooty in rash and negligent manner. The first respondent having noticed the rash and negligent riding of the Scooty he stopped the bus and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:- 1) Whether the deceased Y.Himagiri died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing Regn. AP11-2 6701? 2) Whether the Petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the Respondents as claimed in the petition? 4) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, 1st petitioner-Y.Narayana got examined as PW.1, one of the injured- P.Hemanth Kumar got examined as P.W.2, owner of Sri Padmaavathi Electrical works - P.Devachary got examined as PW.3 and got markedEx.A.1- Certified copy of FIR; Ex.A.2-Certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A.3 - Certified copy of postmortem report, Ex.A.4-Certified copy of Inquest report, Charge sheet; Ex.A5 - Certified copy of Form No.54. 7 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. First respondent - N.Rajeev Gandhi Naidu got examined as R.W.1 and no documents marked on behalf of respondents. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners and respondents, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding Rs.8,26,000/- as compensation to the petitioners together with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realization, with proportionate costs, directing the respondents No.1 to 2 to pay the same within a period of 60 days from the date of the award/order. 9. Being aggrieved the said order and decree, the 2nd respondent – APSRTC has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds – the tribunal erred in awarding Rs.8,26,000/- as compensation without there being any evidence with regard to the income of the injured and though the claimants failed to establish the negligent driving on the part of the RTC bus driver. The tribunal ought to have held that there was contributory negligence on the part of Scooty Pep plus as there was triple riding, deceased was riding the vehicle and they violated the principles and rules of Motor Vehicles Act and the complaint falsely foisted against the driver of APSRTC bus to get more compensation and the owner and insurance company of the Scooty are necessary parties, the rider of Scooty Pep Plus was not having valid driving license, hence the petitioners are 8 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. not entitled for compensation. The tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 10. Heard Sri AravalaRamaa Rao in place of Sri M.K.Ramanadham, Standing Counsel for APSRTC as well as learned Counsel for Respondents. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1stclaimant who is father of the deceased himself got examined as P.W.1 and one of the pillion rider on the motor cycle of deceased and an eyewitness to the accident by name P.Hemanth Kumar got examined as P.W.2 and both of them deposed about the manner of accident. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – certified copy of and Ex.A.4 – certified copy of inquest report, charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1, resulting death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1resulting death of the deceased and accordingly answered issue No.1 in favour of claimants. 13. With regard to quantum – the Appellant has argued that in the absence of any documentary evidence that the deceased was working as an 9 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. electrician and getting Rs.500/- per day, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earnings of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. On perusal of the award, it can be observed that in support of their version, the claimants got examined P.W.3 to prove that the deceased was working as an electrician. P.W.3 who is owner of Sri Padmavathi Electrical Works, Korlagunta, Tirupati, categorically deposed that he used to give Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- per day to the deceased, but, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal Assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is neither illegal nor arbitrary.Thus, the income of the deceased is assessed at (Rs.5,000 x 12 =) Rs.60,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of his death in a road traffic accident as per Ex.A.3-postmortem report and Ex.A.4- inquest report. As the deceased was unmarried 50% is deducted towards his personal living expenses, then it comes to Rs.30,000/- p.a. (60,000-30,000). For the age group of 20 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in "National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi"1, as such the annual income of the deceased would come to(30,000+ 40% i.e. 12,000) Rs.42,000/-.After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. “18” for the age group of 20 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. 12018 ACJ 2782 10 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. Delhi Transport Corporation"2, the loss of dependency would come to (42,000 x 18) Rs.7,56,000/-. 14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.8,26,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 15. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.8,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, for the death of the deceased, was reasonable and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. The order passed by the Tribunal is neither illegal nor arbitrary. There are no grounds to allow the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 16. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall be dismissed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 22009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA NO.552 / 2022 VS,J. 226 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 552/2022 DATED 23.02.2026 KS