The Apsrtc vs Amilineni Seshamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 4651 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

              M.A.C.M.A. Nos.3227 and 3234 of 2014


COMMON JUDGMENT:

      Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge,

Tirupati, passed in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal

has partly allowed the claim against the first respondent, the appeal

bearing No.3227 of 2014 is preferred by the appellant-first

Respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., questioning the legal validity of the order

of the Tribunal.   The claimants in the said case filed MACMA

No.3234 of 2014 claiming remaining balance of compensation.

Since both the appeals relates to one decree and order, both the

cases were heard together and they are being disposed of by this

common judgment.


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

arrayed in claim application.


3.    The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
 Page 2 of 9                               MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014




Tribunal      to   award   an   amount   of   Rs.7,00,000/-     towards

compensation on the account of death of deceased Sudhakar Naidu

in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 12.10.2010.


4.      Facts

germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

Petitioners are parents of the deceased-Sudhakar Naidu.

Deceased was aged about 30 years by the date of his death and he

was working as sales officer of Uttara Foods and Feeds Private

Limited, Pullur and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. On 12.10.2010 at

about 1.00 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in Tata Ace

bearing No.AP03X 5260 as owner of goods along with one Eswar

Reddy near Perur village on Chandragiri-Renigunta 150 bye pass

road, one Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

(A.P.S.R.T.C) bus bearing No.AP 28Z 4769, hereinafter referred to

as 'offending vehicle', driven by its driver towards Chandragiri, came

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Tate Ace

vehicle, resulting which the deceased sustained injuries, later

succumbed to injuries.

Page 3 of 9 MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014

5. The second respondent remained exparte. The respondents 1

and 3 filed counters separately denying the claim of the claimants

and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation

and the respondents 1 and 3 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 deceased viz., A.Sudhakar Naidu died due to receiving injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.10.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing R.No.AP28 Z 4769 and Tata Ace bearing R.No.03X 5260 of the first respondent and second respondent vehicles as alleged?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 Page 4 of 9 MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014

and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1

and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

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

negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus and the Tribunal granted

compensation amount of Rs.4,84,500/- to the claimants against the

first respondent and the Tribunal dismissed the petition against the

respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/

APSRTC filed the appeal MACMA No.3227 of 2014, questioning the

legal validity of the order of the Tribunal, against which the claimants

in the said case filed MACMA No.3234 of 2014.

9. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused

the record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

     i) Whether     the   Order    of   Tribunal     needs       any
        interference?

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

 Page 5 of 9                                  MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014




11.     POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2.

PW2 is an eye-witness to the accident. His evidence goes to show

that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the first respondent bus and there is no

negligence on the part of the driver of the second respondent's

vehicle. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal

came to conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent bus.

Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report goes to show that

the First Information Report was registered against the driver of the

RTC bus. Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet goes to show that

after registration of the crime, the Sub Inspector of Police concerned

took up investigation in this case and conducted investigation and

laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. By

giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the

accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the APSRTC bus. I do not find any legal flaw or

infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

Page 6 of 9 MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014

12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount

of Rs.4,84,500/- to the petitioners towards total compensation. The

claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act.

The deceased was salaried person and employee, working as sales

officer. In order to prove the employment, the petitioners relied on

the evidence of PW3 Deputy General Manager in Uttara Foods and

Feeds Private Limited. His evidence goes to show that the

deceased used to work as a sales officer in their company and

Ex.X2 is the pay slip of the deceased Sudhakar Naidu for the month

of September, 2010 showing his take home salary as Rs.4,785/-,

after deductions. Since the claim application is filed under Section

163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the annual income of the

deceased was restricted to Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal. Since the

deceased was permanent employee, 50% of income has to be

added to the original income towards future prospects. If 50% is

added, it comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. Here the deceased was

a bachelor, so 50% amount has to be deducted towards his

personal expenses, if 50% is deducted, the net income available to

the dependents on the deceased is Rs.30,000/-. Since the

deceased was aged about 30 years by the date of accident, as per II Page 7 of 9 MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014

schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the appropriate multiplier applicable

to the age group of the deceased is 18. Accordingly, an amount of

Rs.5,40,000/- (30,000 x 18) is awarded to the petitioners towards

loss of dependency. In addition to the above, the claimants also

entitled an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection

and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the

deceased. In total, the dependents on the deceased are entitled an

amount of Rs.5,55,000/- towards compensation.

13. In the result, MACMA No.3227 of 2014 filed by the first

respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C is dismissed and MACMA No.3234 of 2014

filed by the claimants/petitioners, is allowed in-part, modifying the

order dated 11.03.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2011 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupati, consequently the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.4,84,500/- to Rs.5,55,000/-. Accordingly, the first claimant-

mother of the deceased is entitled the enhanced compensation

amount of Rs.70,500/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the date of

petition, till the date of realization. The first respondent/ A.P. State

Road Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced Page 8 of 9 MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014

compensation amount of Rs.70,500/- with interest as ordered above,

before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the first claimant is entitled to withdraw the same

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

costs.

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

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 04.10.2023.

Sj
 Page 9 of 9                             MACMA Nos. 3227 & 3234 of 2014






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




              M.A.C.M.A. Nos.3227 and 3234 of 2014




                           04.10.2023

sj