APHC011016412017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3358/2017 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. TELAGAMSETTI SATYA KUMARI AND THREE OTHERS, R/O.1-139A, P.E.CHINNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, 2. TELAGAMSETTI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 1-139A, P.E.CHINNAYAPALEM VILLAGE THONDANGI MADNAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. TELAGAMSETTI RAMANAMMA, W/O LATE BHASKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 1-139A, P.E.CHINNAYAPALEM VILLAGE THONDANGI MADNAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. MADHAVARAPU SRIRAMULU, S/O KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-11Z-5084, VENKATAGIRI RATNA CERAMICS HUKUMPET, RAJAHMUNDRY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X11 Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram passed in M.V.O.P No. 87 of 2014. dated 6.10.2017 and pass 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3358 of 2017 IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 46225 OF 2017 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 execution of decree passed by the Motor Vechiles Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-XII Additional District Judge East Godavari at Pithapuram passed in MVOP No.87/2014 dated:06/10/2017 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3358 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Heard, Mr.K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/appellant and Mr.B.Pavan, learned counsel representing Mr.Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3. 1. Embittered with the Order and Decree, dated 06.10.2017, in M.V.O.P.No.87 of 2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Corporation. 2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the Original Petition. 3. The factual matrix before the Tribunal are that the claimants are three in number. The 1st claimant is the wife, the 2nd claimant is the son and the 3rd claimant is the mother of the deceased. On 19.10.2017 at 07.30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling as a passenger in an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z5084, which was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Gokavaram via Rajahmundry along with co-passengers, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the bus somersaulted into the low-lying area on the left side of the road due to which the deceased and some other passengers received grievous injuries all over the bodies. The deceased Narayana Swamy died on the spot. A case was registered by the Station House Officer, Tuni Rural Police Station, under Section 304(A) of IPC in Crime No.129 of 2007 and the investigation was on. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 49 years and was hale and healthy. The deceased was an employee in APSRTC, working as Assistant Depot Clerk and getting salary of Rs.11,314.10/- per month. 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3358 of 2017 4. Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal remained ex parte. Refuting the contentions in the petition, respondent No.2 stated that the bus was cautiously driven by the driver and because of the loose and slippery road, the bus has fallen into the valley and because of bad condition and slippery road the accident occurred. There is no negligence on part of the 1st respondent and also no fault on the part of the driver and denied the contention that the respondent No.1 has rashly and negligently drove the vehicle. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the deceased Telagamsetti Narayana Swamy, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, died in a motor accident occurred on 19.10.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 5084 driving by its driver/1st respondent? ii. What is the age and income of the deceased? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iv. To what relief? 6. The 1st claimant was examined as PW1, and one S.Veera Raju was examined as PW2. Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the post-mortem examination report and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No.2. 7. The Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, taking into consideration the deposition of PW1. PW2, who is an eye-witness to the accident, travelling in the bus, deposed that on 19.10.2007 at 07:30 p.m., he was travelling in the bus bearing No.AP11Z5084 and that the rash and negligent driving of the driver at high speed caused the bus to somersault and because of the same, Narayana Swamy died on the spot. Police also examined this witness, who stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. 8. As per Ex.A1, certified copy of FIR in Crime No.129 of 2007 under Sections 304(A), 338 and 337 IPC, it is evident that the bus was driven 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3358 of 2017 in a rash and negligent manner which hit cement dimmalu and some of the passengers sustained injuries and Narayana Swamy died instantaneously. Ex.A2, the inquest report shows that, in the presence of blood relatives and panchayatdars, inquest was conducted and that the deceased died in the accident. Ex.A3, postmortem examination conducted by the Medical Officer would also show that there were internal and external injuries and the death was caused due to the accident. So also, Ex.A4, charge sheet also shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 did not place any documentary evidence to disbelieve the statements/evidence placed by the claimants and based on the said statements, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, which sounds appropriate. 9. Regarding issue Nos.2 and 3, it is emphatically stated that the deceased was drawing Rs.11,314/- per month through salary certificate, which is not produced. Even PW1‟s evidence was not contradicted by the respondents so as to elicit that the deceased was not earning Rs.11,314/- per month and there was no hesitation for the Tribunal to take Rs.11,314/- as the income of the deceased. An amount of Rs.7,500/- was contributed to the family every month. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration, the multiplier „13‟ was taken and by applying the multiplier „13‟, the amount derived is Rs.7,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs.11,70,000/- per year. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- to the claimants towards mental agony, and Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd claimant towards compensation for the loss of parental love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,50,000/-, awarded to the claimants, payable by respondents 1 and 2, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal did not consider the settled principles and hastily 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3358 of 2017 awarded compensation despite lacking evidence on the part of the claimants. He further contended that the contentions raised by the respondents/appellants in the counters before the Tribunal were not properly considered, and the Tribunal has awarded the compensation, which is abnormal and needs to be set aside and to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants contended that the ratio pronounced in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another 1 was considered, and the compensation was appropriately awarded. The Tribunal considering the salary drawn by the deceased from the Corporation, rightly awarded the compensation under various heads such as loss of consortium, mental agony, funeral expenses and therefore, the Award of the Tribunal needs no interference and argued to dismiss the appeal filed by the Corporation. 12. This Court, after hearing the submissions made by both the counsels and upon considering the contentions and evidence marked in support of the claimants, is satisfied that the Award of the Tribunal needs no interference. 13. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Order and Decree, dated 06.10.2017, in M.V.O.P.No.87 of 2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date: 06.02.2026 BMS 1 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)