APHC010694952022 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: 580/2022 Between: 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KURNOOL, KURNOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,APSRTC, NEW BUS STAND, KURNOOL. ...APPELLANT AND 1. G SUJATHA, W/O LATE G. KIRAN KUMAR, HINDU AGED 40 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE. 2. G RAHUL, 'S/O LATE G. KIRAN KUMAR HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS,STUDENT. 3. G AKASHARA SRI MINOR, D/O. LATE G. KIRAN KUMAR, HINDU, AGED 10 YEARS, STUDENT. ALL ARE R/O. H.NO.44-403-111-4-1, KAPPA' NAGA, OPP. CHURCH. KURNOOL-CITY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 25/07/2022 passed in MVOP No. 21 of 2020 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool to pass 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 46days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P 2 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 No. 21 of 2020, dated 25/07/2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal District Judge, Kurnool and to pass 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 Award dated 25/07/2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 21 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal District Judge, Kurnool and pass 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 vacate the interim orders dated 03-01-2023 as made in I.A No. 2 of 2022 in MACMA No. 580 of 2022, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V NITESH 3 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 JUDGMEENT: The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 25.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.21 of 2020 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – Principal District Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,44,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased G.Kiran Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 20.05.2018. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, as follows: a) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is the son and the 3rd petitioner is the daughter of deceased. b) On 20.05.2018 at about 5.00 p.m., when the deceased was driving the motorcycle bearing No.AP 21 G 8532 from Omni Hospital lane towards main road, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 2419, owned by the 1st respondent-Corporation and driven by the 2nd respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and the back side tyre of the bus ran over him, causing grievous injuries. When he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, the doctors declared that the was brought dead. Basing on a report, the Station House Officer, Kurnool 4 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2018 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 2419. 04. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 42 years and was working as a driver of a water tanker in Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool and earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. On account of his death, the family lost his earnings as well as his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the crime vehicle respectively. 05. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the age, occupation and manner of the accident. It was contended that the driver of the bus was neither rash nor negligent, and that the deceased drove the motor cycle at high speed and dashed against the bus, as a result of which, he fell down. It was further contended that the bus did not hit the deceased and that a false case was foisted against the driver of the bus. It was also stated that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not impleaded as parties, though they are necessary parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the 1st respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Respondent No.2/driver of the bus also filed a counter stating that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner. It was contended that the deceased came from the lane onto the main road and was unable to control his motorcycle, fell down and came under the back side tyres of the bus. As the accident occurred at a four-road junction, there was no possibility 5 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 of driving the bus rashly or negligently. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether Sri G.Kiran Kumar died in an automobile accident on 20-05-2018? 2. Whether the death of Sri G.Kiran Kumar was out of rash or negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP21Z-2419 by the second respondent or was it out of own negligence or rashness of the deceased in driving a two wheeler bearing No.AP21G-8532? 3. Whether non joinder of owner and insurer of two wheeler bearing No.AP21G- 8532 is fatal on this case as alleged by the first respondent? 4. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW1 and an eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly-allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.12,44,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The 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. Out of the total compensation of Rs.12,44,800/-, the 1st petitioner was apportioned 6 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 Rs.4,14,800/- along with costs and interest; the 2nd petitioner is apportioned Rs.4,15,000/-; and the 3rd petitioner is apportioned Rs.4,15,000/-. On deposit of the said amount by the respondents, the 1st petitioner was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,14,800/- with costs and accrued interest and the remaining share of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit for a period of one year in any Nationalized Bank; the 2nd petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,15,000/- and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit for a period of one year; and the share of the 3rd petitioner was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till she attains majority. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.1/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further contended that the police registered the case against the driver without any investigation. The Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, as the petitioners had not produced any driving licence to prove that the deceased was a driver. In the absence of the evidence, the income ought to have been taken as Rs.5,000/- per month as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head of pecuniary loss to the estate and that the medical bills were fabricated for the purpose of filing the claim petition. Hence, it is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 7 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed on 20.05.2018 at about 5.00 p.m., while the deceased was driving the motorcycle bearing No.AP 21 G 8532 from Omni Hospital lane towards the main road, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 2419 driven by the 2nd respondent, came from the Rajvihar side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and the back side tyre of the bus ran over him, causing grievous injuries. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. To establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondents No.1 and 2, the claimants examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and PW2, who is an eye-witness to the said accident, deposed that he was waiting for the deceased and saw him coming on a motorcycle, and at that time the APSRTC bus driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting in the death of the deceased. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and as well as the fact that during the course of trial the respondents did not dispute the accident, answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. 8 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 14. With regard issue No.2, relying upon Ex.A4/Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.2 as well as the negligence of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence at 2/3rd on the part respondent No.2, the driver of the bus and 1/3rd on the part of the deceased. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was working as a driver of a water tanker in Kurnool Municipal Corporation and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no documentary evidence was filed to substantiate the same. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. As the accident occurred in the year 2018 and having regard to the minimum wages applicable to skilled persons during the said period, which was about Rs.595/- per day, the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, this Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, and the same does not warrant any interference. As the deceased was aged about 42 years, the Tribunal added 30% towards future prospects in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 1, thereby calculating his annual income at Rs.1,87,200/- (Rs.12,000/- + 30% X 12). Since the deceased was survived by his wife and two children, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses. Consequently, 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,24,800/- (Rs.1,87,200 - 1/3rd). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘14’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 42 years, as recorded in Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of Rs.17,47,200/- (Rs.1,24,800/- X 14) towards loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. As the contributory negligence of the deceased in causing the accident was assessed at 1/3rd, after deducting 1/3rd from Rs.17,47,200/-, the amount payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,64,800/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium/love and affection. In addition, basing on the evidence of PW2, the motorcycle of the deceased was found to have sustained damage, for which an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. Thus, the Tribunal, following the aforesaid decisions, has rightly determined the total compensation at Rs.12,44,800/-, 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. 16. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J MACMA No.580 of 2022 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.02.2026 KGR