The Regional Manager, Vijayawada vs P Nagaraju, Kurnool Dist And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8292 AP

BVLNC,J                                                      MACMA 144 of 2016
Page 1 of 10                                                 Dt: 03.11.2022




        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.144 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the respondent/APSRTC,

challenging the award dated 04.05.2015 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.148/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-III Addl.District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, wherein the Tribunal

while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of

Rs.5,44,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants for the death of

P.Vrjinamma.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in

the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an

application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act")

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of

P.Varjinamma, who is wife of 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners 2

to 6, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.12.2012.

 BVLNC,J                                            MACMA 144 of 2016
Page 2 of 10                                       Dt: 03.11.2022

4. The facts show that on 06.12.2012 at about 08.00 a.m. when

the deceased P.Varjinamma was crossing the road, near Kilesapuram

Bus Stop, at that time, APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 7545 came

from Vijayawada side proceeding towards Hyderabad, the driver of the

said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and dashed against the deceased P.Varjinamma, due to that she died

on the spot. The Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station

registered a case in Cr.No.599/2012 for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was hale and

healthy, aged 28 years and was attending labour work and earning

Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the

petitioners are leading very miserable life, facing financial problems,

lost love and affection and suffered untold mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the respondent in the

petition, filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments

with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the

deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the

driver of the crime bus, and liability to pay compensation and

contended that there is no rash and negligence on the part of driver of

APSRTC bus, and the accident was occurred only due to the own

negligence of deceased, while she was crossing the road without BVLNC,J MACMA 144 of 2016 Page 3 of 10 Dt: 03.11.2022

following traffic rules, and this respondent is not liable to pay

compensation, and the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 7545, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of respondent/APSRTC,

R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1

and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7, held that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, and

further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2

corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded a compensation of

Rs.5,44,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realisation.

 BVLNC,J                                              MACMA 144 of 2016
Page 4 of 10                                         Dt: 03.11.2022

9. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that there is no rash and

negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus, and the accident was

occurred only due to the own negligence of deceased, while she was

crossing the road without following traffic rules.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on

the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver.

11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2

coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- as

compensation under the head of loss of financial dependency;

Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of

consortium; Rs.50,000/- towards care and guidance; total comes to

Rs.5,44,000/-.

12. The first contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the

Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. The second

contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in

holding that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day and fixed the

monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month, and therefore, the BVLNC,J MACMA 144 of 2016 Page 5 of 10 Dt: 03.11.2022

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, and contrary to

law.

13. POINT No.1: The first contention of the appellant/APSRTC is

that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of deceased, as

she crossed the road without following the traffic rules, and as such,

there is no negligence on the part of driver of PSRTC, and inspite of

evidence of driver of the bus and a passenger travelling in the bus at

the time of accident, the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident

was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

APSRTC Bus.

14. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that the deceased on

06.12.2012 at about 08.00 a.m. was crossing the road near

Kilesapuram bus stop on Kilesapuram-Ibrahimpatnam Station Limits,

and the APSRTC bus was coming from Vijayawada side, and

proceeding towards Hyderabad, and the driver of the bus was driving

the bus at high speed, and he dashed the deceased, as he drove the

bus in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, the deceased died

on the spot, and police registered a case against the driver of the

PSRTC Bus, and investigated into the case and laid police report

(charge sheet) for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal

Code against the driver of the APSRTC Bus, and that the brother of BVLNC,J MACMA 144 of 2016 Page 6 of 10 Dt: 03.11.2022

deceased (P.W-2), who was proceeding along with the deceased,

witnessed the accident.

15. The claimants in order to establish their case, examined P.W-1,

who is the husband of the deceased. Admittedly, he is not an eye

witness to the incident. The claimants have examined P.W-2, who

presented Ex.P-1 report, basing on which, Ex.A-1 FIR was registered

by the police about the accident. In his evidence, he deposed about

the manner, in which the accident was occurred, stating that the bus

came with high speed, and driver of the bus was driving the bus

negligently, as a result, he dashed the deceased, who was crossing the

road, and the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The

appellant/APSRTC in the cross-examination of P.W-2 did not elicit any

material facts to disbelieve his evidence, and also not elicited any facts

in support of the case of the appellant/APSRTC that the deceased was

negligent while crossing the road, and as a result, the accident was

occurred.

16. It is pertinent to note down that Ex.-5, which is a copy of police

report (charge sheet) laid by the police, prima facie shows that they

have conducted investigation about the alleged incident, and the police

opined that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of APSRTC bus, and P.W-2 was cited as one of the BVLNC,J MACMA 144 of 2016 Page 7 of 10 Dt: 03.11.2022

eye witness to the accident. Under those circumstances, there are no

grounds to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-2 deposed before the

Tribunal.

17. It is true the appellant/APSRTC has examined its driver as

R.W-1. He was shown as accused in Ex.A-5 police report (charge

sheet) laid by the police, stating that the accident was occurred due to

rash or negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The

appellant/APSRTC has examined one Mr.T.Ravikumar as R.W-2,

stating that he was travelling in the bus as a passenger at the time of

accident. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not hand

over his ticket to the police, or he did not present any report to the

police about the accident. It is an admitted fact that he was not cited

as a witness by the police in their police report (charge sheet) filed

before the Court. Under those circumstances, the evidence of R.W-2

cannot be considered as an eye witness to the incident against the

evidence of P.W-2, who is admittedly an eye witness to the accident. In

that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the

appellant/PSRTC that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident

was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

APSRTC bus.

 BVLNC,J                                             MACMA 144 of 2016
Page 8 of 10                                        Dt: 03.11.2022




18.      POINT No.2:      The contention of the claimants is that the

deceased was a coolie, and earning Rs.100/- per day at the time of

accident, which was occurred in the year 2012. The contention of the

appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding that her

monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, considering her income as Rs.100/-

per dy. Rs.100/- per day towards wages for a coolie in the year 2012

as fixed by the Tribunal, cannot be held as erroneous fixation of the

income. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and others1, has applied multiplier 17, as the age of the

deceased was 25 years on the date of accident and deducted ¼ of the

income towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the above

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and arrived the compensation

amount as Rs.4,59,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000-9,000 = Rs.27,000 x 17 =

Rs.4,59,000/-, and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

towards mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the

1st petitioner; and Rs.50,000/- towards care and guidance, and in total

awarded a sum of Rs.5,44,000/-. In that view of the matter, I do not

find any error in the findings of the Tribunal in fixation of

2009 (3) ALD 97 BVLNC,J MACMA 144 of 2016 Page 9 of 10 Dt: 03.11.2022

compensation amount at Rs.5,44,000/-, payable with interest

@ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

19. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to

interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and therefore, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award

dated 04.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.148/2013 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool

at Nandyal. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

                                        _________________________________
                                        B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
03.11.2022

psk
 BVLNC,J                                 MACMA 144 of 2016
Page 10 of 10                            Dt: 03.11.2022




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI




                M.A.C.M.A.No.144 OF 2016




                   3rd November, 2022

psk