Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyd vs J Roji Mery, Kadapa Dist on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Venuthurumalli Gopala Rao
1 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2451 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the respondent/APSRTC in
M.V.O.P.No.487 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Kadapa,
and the respondent is the claimant in the said case.
2. The parties in the appeal will bereferred to as they are
arrayed in the claim application.
3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, for claiming compensation of
Rs.11,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Jajjarapu Arun
Kumar, in a road accident that occurred on 14.02.2011 at
about 05:00 A.M.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 14.02.2011 at about
04:15 a.m., claimant and her husband J. Anil Kumar boarded
A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3263 to go to Kurnool,at
about 05:10 a.m., the bus reached near Hussainaiah Swamy
Darga of meerjakhapalli on Kadapa - Kurnool, NH-18 road, at
that time driver of the bus drove the bus at high speed, lost
2 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
control over the vehicle, dashed against stationed lorry
bearing No.AP16 TV 3507 which was stationed on the left side
of the road margin, as a result claimant and her husband
sustained injuries, her husband was shifted to Government
Hospital, Proddatur for treatment, she further pleaded where
her husband succumbed to the injuries and one B.Lakshmi
Narasimha Reddy who was travelling in the bus, lodged a
complaint in the Police Station.
5. The respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the
counter are as follows:- The accident did not take place due to
alleged rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by its
driver, the driver of the lorry stationed the lorry in wrong side.
The driver of lorry did not flash dim and dip and did not place
any stone to know that lorry is stationed. Further it was dark
and another vehicle came from opposite direction in high
speed. In order to avoid accident the driver of the bus turned
the vehicle towards left side and thus the accident took place.
A false case is foisted against driver of the RTC even though
there is negligence on the part of driver of the lorry who
parked the vehicle, the claim is excessive.
3 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
6. Based on the above pleadings the, Tribunal framed
following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a
vehicular accident occurred on 14.02.2011 at 05:10
a.m., near Hussainaiah Swamy Darga of
Meerjakhanapalli village on Kadapa-Kurnool main
road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3263 belong to
respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation claimed for the injuries sustained by
the petitioner? If so to what extent?
3) Whether the respondent liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner?
4) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the claimant, claimant is examined herself
as PW1 and PW2 is also examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to
A.6.and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any
interference?
POINT:
9. PW1 is the wife of the deceased, she was also travelling
in the crime vehicle along with her husband on the date of
4 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
accident, she is an eye witness to the accident, she is the best
person to the accident, her evidence clearly goes to show that
the driver of the RTC bus drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner at that time of accident and dashed to the
stationed lorry and that they received injuries. Ex.A1 certified
copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet also
supports the same. Therefore, in view of the above reasons it
is clear, the accident is occurred due to the pure negligence of
the driver of the APSRTC bus only. The learned Tribunal also
gave the same finding, therefore, there is no need to interfere
with the finding given by the Tribunal.
10. The claimant is none other than the wife of the deceased
and she has no children. As per the case of the petitioner, the
deceased who is her husband was working as Home Guard on
daily wage basis and Ex.A6 is duty allowance certificate of the
deceased. PW2 S. Subbanna also deposed that the deceased
was paid on daily wage basis @ Rs.200/- per day. Ex.A6 also
supports the same. The Ex.A6 clearly indicate that the
deceased was working as a Home Guard earning Rs.200/- per
day,the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day. Therefore,
the monthly income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal
5 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
for an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, and his annual
income of Rs.6,000/-x12=Rs.72,000/- and the deceased was
aged about 32 years at the time of his death,1/3rd is deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased. 1/3rd of
Rs.72,000/- is deducted, it would come to Rs.48,000/- is
available towards net income of the deceased. As per the
decision of Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another1, the multiplier
applicable to the age group of the deceased is '16'. Therefore,
net income available to the deceased of Rs.48,000/-
x16=Rs,.7,68,000/- towards loss of dependency, and an
amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, an amount
of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate was granted by the
Tribunal. Therefore, on considering the entire material on
record the learned Tribunal granted total compensation of
Rs.7,90,000/- with interest of 7.5% p.a. Therefore, there is no
need to interfere with thesaid finding given by the Tribunal.
Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits.
11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the
order dated 18.06.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.487 of 2012 on the file
2009 ACJ 1298
6 MACMA.NO.2451 of 2015
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal
District Judge at Kadapa.
As sequel, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Dated:11.04.2023.
KNN
