APHC010489182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 377/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS, RTC HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. VALLURI SAHI BE, W/O LATE SATHI BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O DNO. 9-2, POLICE STATION STREET, BIKKAVOLU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. VALLURI ASHA, D/O LATE SATHI BABU, AGED 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O DNO. 9-2, POLICE STATION STREET, BIKKAVOLU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. VALLURI MOULISHA, D/O LATE SATHI BABU, AGED 20 YE.ARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O DNO. 9-2, POLICE STATION STREET, BIKKAVOLU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. KUNDETI MADHULAMMA, W/O LATE KRUPARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O HNO 14-6-2, ANKAMVARIVEEDHI, GUNDAPUGARIVEEDHI, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. VALLURI VEERRAJU, S/O LATE SATTIYYA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O DNO. 7-3, PEDAPUDI VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. SOMAROUTHU VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O DNO. 9-11-4,GANDHINAGAR, KAKINADA. (RESPONDENT NO. 6 IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) 2 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtmay be pleased to set aside Decree and Order dated 27.01.2022 passed in M.V,O.P NO. 156 of 2019 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajamahend.avaram, East Godavari and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass such 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P NO. 156 of 2019, dated 27.01.2022 on the the of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and to pass such 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 may be pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order dated 27.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P NO. 156 of 2019 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass such 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 permit me to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of M.V.O.P. No. 156 of 2019 on the file of Court of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Rajamahendravaram pursuant to the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court in I.A. No.2 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 377 of 2022 and pass such other orders in the Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C PRAKASH REDDY 3 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 J U D G M E N T: The present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC challenging the order and decree dated 27.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners and awarded compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Four Thousand only), as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), on account of the death of Valluri Sattibabu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2018. 02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: (a) The claim petition was filed by the wife, children and parents of the deceased Valluri Sattibabu, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for his death in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2018 at about 06.30 p.m. near H.P. Gas Godown, R.S. Peta Village, Bikkavolu Mandal. It is the case of the petitioners that while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle along with P.W.2, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3893, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting in his 5 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 death on the spot. The 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending bus. (b) The 2nd respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by the 1st respondent, denying the allegations in the claim petition. It was contended that on 28.09.2018, the 1st respondent was driving the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3893 from Rajahmundry to Kakinada slowly, carefully and on the extreme left side of the road. It was further contended that, after the bus reached Bikkavolu Village near Sir Arthur Cotton Statue Centre and passengers boarded the bus, the 1st respondent proceeded further and, while the bus was in motion, the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner while using a cell phone, suddenly came near the bus on the wrong side and, on observing the bus very closely, fell down on the road as he was unable to control the speed of the motor cycle. Therefore, it was contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was also contended that the petitioners ought to have impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle and that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The compensation claimed was also contended to be excessive and exorbitant. 04. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: "1. Whether the deceased Valluri Sattibabu, S/o. Veerraju died in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3893 in a 6 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.09.2018 near H.P. Gas Godown on the SH40 road of R.S. Peta Village, Bikkavolu, East Godavari District? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?" 05. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 06. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC. 07. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It is further contended that the deceased was riding the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road while using a cell phone and that the 1st respondent was driving the APSRTC bus slowly and carefully. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 09. Now the point for consideration is: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3893? ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement? POINT No.1: 10. The first claimant, being the wife of the deceased, got examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to the nature of the accident. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident. In support of her case, she also got examined P.W.2, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2 categorically deposed that on 28.09.2018 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased and himself were going on their respective motor cycles to the lorry office at Balabhadrapuram and, when they crossed the H.P. Gas Godown, Bikkavolu, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3893, driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the sudden dash, the deceased fell on the left side margin of the road and sustained grievous injury to his head and other multiple injuries and died on the spot. 11. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Apart from the said evidence, P.W.1 also marked Exs.A1 to A8 in support of her case. The 8 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 and A5, particularly the copy of the charge sheet, which discloses that, after due investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus, answered Issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant filed the present appeal on the ground that the accident occurred due to the hit and collision between both the vehicles, i.e., the APSRTC bus and the motor cycle on which the deceased and P.W.2 were travelling, and as such, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. On the other hand, there is no evidence to establish that the accident occurred due to a hit and collision between the two vehicles, as no evidence has been adduced by the respondents before the Tribunal to that effect. On the other hand, admittedly, Ex.A5, charge sheet, has been filed against the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the APSRTC bus, after due investigation by the Police, holding him responsible for the said accident. In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to Issue No.1. POINT No.2: 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it can be observed that, as per Exs.A1, A2 and A5, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 38 years. However, as per the other documents, particularly Ex.A7, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 42 years. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate 9 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 Ex.A8, the original passport of the deceased, which shows that the date of birth of the deceased was in the year 1980. If the same is considered, as on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased would be 38 years and not 42 years. Accordingly, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 38 years would be „15‟ and not „14‟, as considered by the Tribunal. 14. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was a driver and had initially worked in Kuwait and thereafter shifted to the State of A.P. In the absence of any evidence relating to his income, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, and his annual income would come to Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000/- × 12), which, in the opinion of this Court, is reasonable, having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2018. 15. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. However, petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to parental consortium. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. 16. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 10 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of dependency Rs.11,34,000/- Rs.17,01,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 /- Parental consortium to petitioner No.4 ----- Rs.40,000/- Parental consortium to petitioner No.5 ---- Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.12,04,000/- Rs.18,51,000/- 17. Though the present appeal has been preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation, even in the absence of any cross-objections filed by the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha v. Santosh2. 18. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,51,000/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement from Rs.12,04,000/- to Rs.18,51,000/-. The petitioners are accordingly entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, in addition to the compensation already awarded. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,04,000/- to Rs.18,51,000/-. 2 SCC Online SC 1312 11 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 The apportionment of the compensation among the petitioners shall be made in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 06.08.2026 JLV 12 VS,J MACMA No.377 of 2022 145 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 377/2022 Date: 06.08.2026 JLV