A.Ravi Naik 2 Ors vs The Ap State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1497 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.699 of 2015


JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2013

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Kurnool and the respondents are the respondents in

the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of deceased Ramavath Devi Bai in a Motor Vehicle

Accident occurred on 06.07.2013.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 06.07.2013 at night time

the deceased boarded the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0079

at Anantapur to go to Srisailam and at about 11.40 p.m. when the

bus reached near Reliance petrol bunk on NH-44 road, the driver of VGKRJ MACMA 699 of 2015 Page 2 of 9 Dt:17.03.2023

the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulting

which, he lost control over the bus and dashed against a stationed

lorry bearing No.AP 02 W 8075, which was parked on extreme left

side with parking lights. As a result, the passengers sitting on the

left side of the bus, including the deceased, received injuries and the

deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot and the petitioners

claimed an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The second respondent remained exparte. The first and third

respondents filed counters by denying the claim application and

contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and

the first and third respondents are not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0079 or due to the negligent parking of lorry bearing No.AP 02 W 8075?

ii. Whether the deceased Ramavath Devi Bai died in the road accident?

 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 699 of 2015
Page 3 of 9                                     Dt:17.03.2023




 iii.   Whether     the    petitioners   are   entitled   to

compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

iv. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.5,29,200/- to the claimants towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal

by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

I. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

II. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 699 of 2015
Page 4 of 9                                     Dt:17.03.2023




11.     POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

The case of the claimants is that on 06.07.2013 at night time

the deceased boarded the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 02 Z 0079

at Anantapur to go to Srisailam and at about 11.40 p.m. when the

bus reached near Reliance petrol bunk on NH-44 road, the driver of

the bus drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent

manner, resulting which, he lost control over the bus and dashed

against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 02 W 8075, which was

parked on extreme left side with parking lights. As a result, the

passengers sitting on the left side of the bus, including the deceased,

received injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the

spot itself.

12. First respondent filed written statement denying the claim of

the claimants. The second respondent remained exparte and the

third respondent also pleaded the claimants are not entitled to any

compensation.

13. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioners

examined the first petitioner, who is the husband of deceased as

PW1. He is not an eye witness to the accident. The petitioners VGKRJ MACMA 699 of 2015 Page 5 of 9 Dt:17.03.2023

relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A5

certified copy of charge sheet. PW1 deposed in his evidence about

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus. No doubt he

is not an eye witness to the accident, but Ex.A1 clearly goes to show

that the matter was reported to the police and they registered a case

against the driver of RTC bus and Ex.A5 goes to show that after

completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge

sheet against the driver of RTC bus. Ex.A4 Motor Vehicle Inspector

report also goes to show that the accident was not occurred due to

mechanical defects of the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above

reasons it is clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus only. Here the

petitioners are none other than the family members of the deceased.

As seen from Ex.A2 certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A3

certified copy of post mortem report, the age of the deceased was

33 years and the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was

doing household work and also doing coolie work and earning

Rs.5,000/- per month, but they did not produce any evidence to

prove the quantum of income, the learned Tribunal has considered

the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. By taking into VGKRJ MACMA 699 of 2015 Page 6 of 9 Dt:17.03.2023

the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have not

challenged the said finding. The learned Tribunal also granted 30%

of the amount towards future prospects of the deceased.

14. Here the accident was occurred in the year 2013. In those

days, an ordinary coolie can easily earn a minimum amount of

Rs.120/- per day and that the monthly income of deceased was

taken up as Rs.3,600/- per month, annual income was Rs.43,200/-.

30% has to be added towards future prospects of the deceased

Rs.43,200/- + Rs.12,960/- = Rs.56,160/- and 1/3rd of the income has

to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, after

deducting the 1/3 of the income, the net income available is

Rs.37,440/- (Rs.56,160/- - Rs.18,720/- = Rs.37,440/-). The multiplier

applicable to the age group of the deceased as per Sarla Verma

and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1

is '16'. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,99,040/- (Rs.37,440/- x 16 =

Rs.5,99,040/-) is granted to the petitioners towards loss of

dependency. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral and other expenses.

    2009 ACJ 1298
 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 699 of 2015
Page 7 of 9                                     Dt:17.03.2023

No appeal is filed by any of the respondents against the said finding

for awarding Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral and

other expenses to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, in

total, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.6,29,040/-.

Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.5,29,200/- to Rs.6,29,040/-.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in-part, by modifying the

order dated 24.03.2015 passed in MVOP No.465/2013 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

Kurnool. It is held that the appellants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.6,29,040/- with interest @9% p.a. on the

enhanced compensation, from the date of petition, till the date of

payment. The first respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the

balance amount within one month from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same

along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to

costs.

 VGKRJ                                          MACMA 699 of 2015
Page 8 of 9                                    Dt:17.03.2023

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated: 17.03.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 699 of 2015
Page 9 of 9                              Dt:17.03.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.699 of 2015

17.03.2023

sj