The A.P. State Road Transport ... vs Tella Suneetha,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2468 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                                     AND

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO


                       M.A.C.M.A. No.328 of 2021

JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

       This appeal is directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P

No.379 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -

cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, whereby a sum of

Rs.42,92,344/-       was   awarded    towards     compensation     to   the

claimants.


       The facts germane to dispose of this Appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:


2.     The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased

Suresh. On 01.09.2017, while Suresh was going to Chirala in the

APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29Z 0503, when the said bus reached

NSP canal of Garataiah colony in Addanki Town, the deceased

noticed another bus to reach his destination. While he was getting

down to board the other bus, the driver of the said bus moved the

same negligently and he fell down from the bus and the bus ran over

him. He sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and

succumbed to the said injuries while he was taking treatment in the

KIMS Hospital. A case in Crime No.157 of 2017 was registered

against the driver of the said APSRTC bus, by the Addanki Police for

the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Therefore, the
                                   2

claimants, who are his wife and daughters, laid the claim for

compensation.


3.    The respondents therein opposed the said claim alleging that

the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and there

was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus.

4. Upon considering the evidence on record and on appreciation

of the same, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred only due

to negligent driving of the said APSRTC bus driver and recorded a

finding to that effect. The Tribunal also after considering the

evidence on record relating to earnings of the deceased, who is an

employee, as per Ex.A5 - salary certificate, awarded compensation of

Rs.42,22,344/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.70,000/- towards

loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium and in total a

sum of Rs.42,92,344/- was awarded towards compensation to the

claimants.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal is preferred by the

APSRTC, who is the 1st respondent in the said M.V.O.P. No. 379 of

2017 questioning the legal validity of the impugned award.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel

for the respondents.

7. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has

confined his argument only to the compensation awarded under the

head of loss of dependency alleging that the Tribunal relied on Ex.A5

only on the sole ground that probative value of the said salary

certificate is not questioned by the respondents in the cross-

examination. He would submit that the said finding of the Tribunal

is legally not sustainable and the claimants are not entitled to

Rs.42,22,344/- towards compensation for the loss of dependency.

8. Although the Appeal has been also filed on the other grounds

alleging that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the

bus and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the

deceased, learned counsel for the appellants did not press for the

said ground in this Appeal and as noticed supra, he has confined his

arguments only to the compensation that was awarded under the

head of loss of dependency. Therefore, the only legal ground which

requires to be considered in this Appeal is whether the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is

legally sustainable or not.

9. It is not disputed by the appellants that the deceased was an

employee working as Commercial Manager in Coromandel Agro

Products and Oils Limited, Chirala. The claimants have also

produced Ex.A5 - salary certificate in proof of monthly earnings of

the deceased at the time of his death. To prove the said salary

certificate, PW.4, who is the Personal Officer of the said Company,

was also examined. The APSRTC did not elicit anything in cross-

examination of PW-4 to discredit his testimony given regarding the

monthly earnings of the deceased while working in the said Company

as Personal Manager. The validity of Ex.A5 was also not questioned

in the cross-examination. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-

4 coupled with Ex.A5 - salary certificate, the Tribunal recorded a

finding that the deceased was earning Rs.29,000/- per month

towards his salary. Adding 30% of the said income towards future

prospects and applying the appropriate multiplier of 14, as the

deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of his death, the

Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.42,22,344/- towards

loss of dependency.

10. We don't find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said findings of

the Tribunal and in awarding the said quantum of compensation

towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the impugned award is

perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference.

11. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the award of

the Tribunal. No costs.

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

stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 26.04.2023 AKN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No.328 of 2021

Date: 26-04-2023

AKN