The Apsrtc., vs Smt Aruva Padmavathi And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1621 AP

                                   1           MACMA.NO.981of 2013


     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
                 M.A.C.M.A.No.981 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the 3nd respondent/APSRTC in

M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum- I Addl. District Judge, Anantapur, and the

respondents are the claimants and R1 and R2 in the said case.

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

arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under section 140

and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming for compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the death caused to Aruva Ramesh Babu,

the husband of the 1st petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident

occurred on 18.10.2011 at about 2:00 pm.

4. The case of the claimants are as follows:

On 18.10.2011 at about 02:00 p.m., while the deceased

was going on his TVS XL Moped bearing No. AP 02 N 4753 from

Gorantla to his village. When he reached near Chitravathi

Bridge, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 came

in the opposite direction and at that time the driver of the bus 2 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

was driving at high speed in a rash and negligent manner

without giving any side to the opposite vehicle. While so, the

rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle bearing No.AP02 AH

2401 came in the opposite direction of the deceased by over

taking the bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the TVS XL Moped of the deceased. As a

result of which the deceased fell down on the road and the

driver of the bus without stopping the bus ran over the

deceased and the dragged the deceased to a distance of 20 feet

and thereby the deceased has died on the spot itself.

5. The 1st respondent had remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a counter,

denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased also

denies the manner in which the accident is alleged to have

occurred. The 2nd respondent further pleaded in fact, the

accident had occurred due to the sheer negligence of the driver

of the third respondent bus, but not due to rider of the motor

cyclist, actually, the deceased was run over by the APSRTC bus

and therefore, the driver of the third respondent is solely

responsible for the accident. The petitioners have to establish

that the crime motor cycle was insured with this respondent.

3 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

Even if issuance of policy is positively proved, the liability of

this respondent will be subject to the terms and conditions of

the policy. The 2nd respondent further pleaded the rider of the

motor cycle was not holding valid and effective and subsisting

driving license by the date of the accident and therefore this

respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation, the

claim of the petitioners is excessive.

7. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, contending that on

the alleged date of accident, the driver of the bus bearing No.

AP 28 Z 1786 was proceeding towards Hindupur. While the bus

reached near Hindupur-Kadiri road at Gorantla village, the

driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AH 2401 drove it at

high speed in a rash and negligent manner without taking

precautionary measures dashed against one Moped bearing

No.AP 02 N 4753 which is coming in the opposite direction, as

a result of which the rider of the moped by name Ramesh Babu

fell and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot, in fact,

the driver of the R.T.C. bus drove it in slow manner by taking

all precautions and therefore, the case is also registered only

against the rider of the motor cycle and there is no rashness

and negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, 4 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

The third respondent further pleaded in fact, there was

rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased and as

well as the rider of the motor cycle, therefore, both riders of the

motor cycle and Moped are responsible for that accident.

Gorantla Police has also registered a case in Cr.No.111/2011

against the rider of the motor cycle by name Hari also and

against the deceased rider of the Moped, the other allegations

mentioned in the petition are denied, the claim of the

petitioners is excessive.

8. Based on the above pleadings the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AH 2401 and A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 as they dashed against the TVS XL Moped of deceased Aruva Ramesh Babu and caused his death?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? and if so, to what amount? and from which respondent?

iii) To what relief?

9. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined

and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondents, RW1

and RW4 are examined, Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 to X3 are marked.

5 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

10. Basing on the material on record, the Tribunal held that

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

driver of the motor cycle and A.P.S.R.T.C. bus vehicle and

awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against

the respondents No.1 and 3.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent/APSRTC

filed the present appeal.

12. Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any

interference?

POINT:

13. PW1 is the 1st petitioner in this case, she deposed in her

evidence that her husband Ramesh Babu while going on a

Moped had met with an accident and had died in a Motor

Vehicle Accident. She has deposed about the involvement of

the RTC bus and as well as motor cycle belonged to 1 st

respondent. PW1 has admitted that she is not an eye witness

to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident, as per

his evidence, the deceased was going on a Moped on that 6 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

particular day and at that time the RTC bus came in a opposite

direction and motor bike belonged to the 1st respondent came

in a opposite direction. He further deposed in his evidence that

the rider of the motor cycle while over taking the bus dashed

against the Moped and thereby the deceased fell underneath

the bus. Ex.A1 F.I.R. is clearly revealing the involvement of the

RTC bus and also the motor bike belonged to 1st respondent in

causing the accident while dashed against the deceased. No

doubt, the First Information Report is registered only against

the rider of the motor cycle and the charge sheet is also filed

against the rider of the motor cycle. The PW2 clearly deposed

in his evidence that the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and

negligent manner without giving side to the opposite vehicle

and had dragged the deceased for 20 feet distance, thereby the

deceased had died. The trial Court by giving cogent reasons in

its order clearly came to conclusion that both the RTC bus

driver and rider of the TVS Moped are jointly responsible for

the said accident and the driver of the bus and rider of the TVS

Moped, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and

both are responsible for the accident. There is no illegality in

the said finding given by the Tribunal below, therefore, there is

no need interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

7 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

14. The Petitioners are claiming the compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of husband of 1st

petitioner, as per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was

aged about 28 years, as per the Inquest report and Postmortem

Report, the deceased was aged about 30 years, the multiplier

applicable to the deceased is "17". As per decision of Smt. Smt.

Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another1, the deceased was working as a lorry driver and

was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. And it was

held by the trial Court in its order that the avocation of the

deceased is not disputed by the respondents, and the dispute

is with regard to the income of the respondents. Basing on

the material on record the Trial Court fixed the income of the

deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and his annual income is

Rs.60,000/-. There are five dependents on the deceased and

1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the

deceased. Therefore, the contribution to the family would come

to Rs.45,000/-. Therefore, the loss of income to the petitioners

would come to Rs.7,65,000/-(Rs.45,000/- x 17). The Tribunal

held in its order that, the 1st petitioner being the wife of the

2009 (4) SCJ 91 8 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

deceased awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium and the petitioner are also awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5.000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of

love and affection. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

15. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed

income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, the material

on record clearly goes to show that the rider of the two-wheeler

Hari Krishna was not having any kind of driving license by the

date of the accident. he was in possession of L.L.R only and he

has no license, the material on record revels that the rider of

the motor cycle was holding L.L.R. 06.01.2011 to 05.04.2011

and also 02.02.2012 to 01.08.2012, therefore, by the date of

the accident, i.e. on 18.10.2011, the rider of the motor cycle

was not holding any license at all by the date.

16. In order to prove the contention of the 2nd

respondent/insurance company that, the rider of the two-

wheeler was not having any driving license to drive the two-

wheeler, staff member of the RTA office is examined as RW4.

9 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

RW4 deposed that the rider of the motor cycle of HariKrishna

was not holding valid driving license by the date of accident.

17. This Court has clearly stated about that both the driver

of RTC bus and rider of the two-wheeler are equally responsible

for the accident, the same leads to the death of the deceased.

The driver of the RTC bus is agent of 3rd respondent. The owner

of Moped is first respondent. The learned Tribunal gave the

said finding there is violation of policy. No doubt the two-

wheeler is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company

and policy is also on force, but the rider of the two-wheeler is

not having any kind of driving license on the date of accident.

Therefore, both the 1st and 3rd respondents are jointly liable to

pay the compensation to the petitioners. The learned Tribunal

has awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against

respondent No. 1 and 3 as directed to both respondent No.1

and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given

by the Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is

devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.

10 MACMA.NO.981of 2013

18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the

order dated.31.12.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2011 on the file

of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Addl. District Judge,

Anantapur. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated:23.03.2023.

KNN