Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs Panchumarthi Siva Prasada Rao
2023 Latest Caselaw 4633 AP

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

                    MACMA No.144 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, APSRTC calls in question the order dated 18.07.2019

of learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-

Principal District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1219 of 2016.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants before the claims

tribunal. Respondent No.4 is the driver of the offending RTC

bus.

3. Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, the learned Standing

counsel for appellant and Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, the learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted arguments.

Respondent No.4 did not contest the case before the claims

tribunal and he is shown as not a necessary party to this

appeal.

4. On 22.08.2016 at about 12:30 pm Smt. Panchumarthi

Jamuna was boarding APSRTC bearing No.AP 03 Z 0115.

However, while she was in the act of boarding the bus, the

driver of the bus without taking due care and caution moved the

bus forward and consequently the foot board of the bus dragged

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

the woman to a distance causing serious injuries to her left foot,

left leg and other parts of the body. She was admitted in Sunrise

Hospital, Vijayawada and while undergoing treatment she died

on 24.08.2016. The deceased woman was a home maker and

she also usually attend tailoring works. It is in those

circumstances seeking compensation for her death, her

husband and two of her adult children together made a claim

before the claims tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.1219 of 2016. In the

said claim, the driver of the offending APSRTC bus was shown

as respondent No.1. He did not choose to contest the matter.

The APSRTC which owns the offending bus was shown as

respondent No.2. In its counter APSRTC disputed the facts that

are alleged in the claim and contended that the claim made was

excessive and that the death of the woman was not out of rash

or negligent act on part of its driver/respondent No.1 therein.

On these disputed facts, the claims tribunal settled the

following issues for trial:

Issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 22.08.2016 has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC

bus (crime vehicle) bearing No.AP 03 Z 0115 by its

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

driver/1st respondent and whether the deceased

Panchumarthi Jamuna died due to the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation,

if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the

respondents?

3. To what relief?

5. At the trial, husband of the deceased who is also 1st

claimant testified as PW.1, an eyewitness to the incident

testified as PW.2, the manager of Sunrise Hospitals, Vijayawada

where the injured was treated and died while undergoing

treatment testified as PW.3. Concerning this accident police

registered a case as against the driver of the offending bus. The

claimants have exhibited on their behalf Ex.A1- Certified copy of

FIR in Cr.No.622 of 2016 of Krishnalanka Police Station,

Vijayawada. The said crime was investigated into and resulted

in filing of charge sheet which became C.C.No.775 of 2016.

Certified copy of it is Ex.A2. Since the death occurred in a

crime, the investigating agency had got conducted inquest over

the dead body and thereafter the dead body was subjected to

post-mortem examination. Those reports were marked as

Exs.A3 and A4. The offending bus was examined by the Motor

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

Vehicles Inspector and his report is marked as Ex.A5. Since the

woman died in the hospital, the death summary issued by

Sunrise Hospitals, Vijayawada is as per Ex.A6. The final bill

issued by the hospital is Ex.A7. The ambulance bill is Ex.A8

and other medical bills are Ex.A9. As against this evidence, the

driver of the bus though did not contest the claim petition

deposed as RW.1 on behalf of APSRTC. No documents were

marked on behalf of APSRTC.

6. After hearing arguments on both sides and after

considering the evidence on record, the claims tribunal found

that it was rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the

APSRTC bus the incident occurred and the woman received

injuries and died out of those injuries. Under various heads, it

calculated the compensation and held that towards loss of

dependency Rs.3,60,000/- and towards funeral expenditure

Rs.15,000 and towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and

towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and towards medical and

other incidental expenditure Rs.2,50,000/- was thus awarded.

The total compensation awarded was Rs.6,80,000/-. Claims

tribunal granted 7.5% per annum over the said amount from

the date of claim petition till the date of deposit or realization

and proportionate costs were awarded and necessary

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

apportionments were made. 30 days time was granted for

deposit.

7. In challenge to the above, APSRTC preferred this appeal.

Appellant contends that without there being any acceptable

evidence tribunal incorrectly concluded that death of the woman

was due to rash or negligent act of the driver of the offending

bus and the compensation awarded is excessive and incorrect.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the deceased woman

was a non-earning member and the learned claims tribunal

assessed her notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and that

was excessive and therefore interference is needed.

8. As against it, learned counsel for claimants/respondent

Nos.1,2 and 3 submits that entire evidence was properly

considered by the claims tribunal and the findings arrived at are

based on evidence and are supported by adequate reasons. It is

further argued that quantifying the services rendered by a home

maker when the learned claims tribunal assessed the notional

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, the same cannot

be called as excessive or exorbitant and learned counsel placed

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

reliance on Kirthi V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 argued for

upholding the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

9. Points that fall for consideration is:

1. Did the claims tribunal commit error in arriving

at the notional income of a house maker who

died in an auto mobile accident?

2. Whether the impugned award/order of the

claims tribunal suffers from any errors on facts

and law requiring interference?

POINTS:-

This Court has gone through the material made available

for consideration of this Court. The incident occurred on broad

day light. The undisputed facts are that Sri

G.Lakshmipathi/respondent No.4 herein was at the steering

wheel of APSRTC bearing No.AP 03 Z 0115. On 22.08.2016 at

12:30 pm at Vijayawada, the conductor for the bus was inside

(2021) 2 SCC 166

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

the bus. Several passengers were already on the bus. Several

people were getting onto the bus. As to what happened at the

material point of time was spoken to by PW.2 who is an

eyewitness to the incident. He gave out his version stating that

while the woman was boarding the bus, the driver moved the

bus ahead without care and caution and as a consequence the

woman was dragged and as a consequence she sustained

serious injuries and died out of those injuries in the next two

days. As rightly pointed out by the learned claims tribunal there

was no evidence to show that the conductor of the bus signalled

the driver to move the bus. That makes it clear that the bus

driver moved the bus without minding about entry of

passengers was completed or not. Moving the bus ahead in that

manner indicates absence of reasonable care on part of the

driver. That is negligence. The driver of the offending bus in his

evidence as RW.1 admitted about the departmental order

suspending him because of this accident. He also admitted that

this incident gave rise to a criminal case against him. PW.1 gave

evidence about the incident and about the police report. Claims

tribunal considered Exs.A1 to A5. They indicate that the

investigative outcome of State Police showed that it was rash or

negligent use of automobile by the driver of the APSRTC that

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

caused the death of the woman. Thus, the evidence of PW.2

found full support from the police investigative outcome. It was

in the light of such evidence the claims tribunal found that the

act of driving the bus ahead without minding as to whether

everyone boarded the bus or not was an act of negligence on

part of the driver of the bus and in that view of the matter, it

concluded the issue holding the driver of the bus responsible for

the death of the woman. APSRTC being the owner of the bus

was vicariously held liable to compensate the death. Thus, the

findings of the tribunal are based on evidence and are

supported by reasons. In this appeal, learned counsel for

appellant failed to bring to the notice of this Court any flaw in

this regard. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned

claims tribunal are held as right on facts and law.

10. One of the contentions raised in this appeal is about

granting excessive amount with reference to medical expenses.

Tribunal awarded Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses. A

perusal of the record indicates Ex.A7 -Final bill issued by

Sunrise Hospitals is for Rs.2,09,064/-. Ex.A8-Ambulance bill is

for Rs.10,000/-. Ex.A9-Bunch of medical bills are for Rs.26,043.

Put together they are about Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, what was

granted by the claims tribunal is what is disclosed by the

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

recorded bills. Therefore, nothing excess was granted by the

claims tribunal. Hence the contention raised adverse to by the

appellant is negatived.

11. While assessing the loss of dependency, the claims

tribunal at para No.15 of impugned order stated that it assessed

the notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month for the deceased

woman who was the house maker. Thus, the annual income per

year was calculated at Rs.60,000/-. 1/3rd of it was deducted

towards possible personal expenditure. Therefore, Rs.40,000/-

per year was found to be the loss of dependency. Looking at her

age 56 years, it applied the multiplier "9". On multiplying the

multiplier to the multiplicand, it came to conclude that

Rs.3,60,000/- was found to be the loss of dependency and it

accordingly granted it.

12. The woman who lost her life in this accident was aged 56

years. Her husband was aged 60 years and two of her children

were in mid 20's. Thus, the husband lost his affectionate wife

and two of her children lost their mother who managed the

whole of the work at the home. In this appeal, the appellant

contends that fixing notional monthly income of Rs.5,000/- to a

home maker is incorrect. Learned counsel submits that it could

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

be fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Having considered the submissions and

having considered the material available on record, this Court

finds no merit in this contention. Whenever notional income is

to be determined different considerations and factors are to be

taken into account. The woman in the home being a wife to a

husband and mother to multiple children renders immeasurable

service to her family. Losing her impacts the family in many

ways. It is in acceptance of that idea that made the law Courts

to assess the economic actualization of it for the purpose of

granting compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

catena of decisions reiterated this aspect of the matter and even

have held that in those cases of motor accidents where a woman

who was a home maker died just and reasonable compensation

should be arrived at by fixing the notional income and while

such income is fixed, it should also bear in its mind the

inflation in the country and it should also bear in mind that the

law demands granting future prospects based on that notional

income vide Krithi V. Oriental Insurance Company2. Viewed

from that angle when the evidence on record is considered, it is

clear that the claims tribunal has been alive to these principles,

though not disclosed very explicitly. It is in these circumstances

2021 (2) SCC 166

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

fixing Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income by the tribunal

cannot be stated to be either excessive or unreasonable or

against facts and circumstances. This Court finds no basis to

arrive at a different conclusion. There is no merit in the

contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant.

13. After thorough consideration of the entire record, this

Court finds that the learned claims tribunal appropriately

considered the entire evidence on record, and it did not violate

any principles of law and it granted compensation under all the

heads under which it was expected to grant compensation and

it did not exceed its jurisdiction in any manner. Therefore, no

interference is called for. Both points are answered against the

appellant.

14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall

deposit the amounts overdue within a period of 30 days from

the date of this order after giving due credit to the amounts that

were already deposited.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 03.10.2023 DVS

Dr. VRKS, J MACMA.No.144 of 2022

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

MACMA No.144 of 2022

Date: 03.10.2023

DVS