Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Ap State Road Transport ... vs B.Radha Rukmini Devi 3 Ors on 12 October, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2374 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated
01.12.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.536 of 2009, on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Principal District
Judge, Kurnool, whereby a claim of Rs.8,45,000/- was
awarded to the petitioners with proportionate interest and
costs at the rate of interest 8% per annum by the Tribunal
aggrieved thereby the claimants preferred the instant appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the
appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim
application.
3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly
stated as follows:-
4. On 15-04-2009, the deceased B.Srinivasa Siva Kumar
started from Kondapeta village of Kadapa District along with
his uncle on his motor cycle bearing registration no AP04E-
6188 in order to go to Kurnool. The uncle of the deceased got
down the motor cycle at Allagadda, at about '11.45 a.m.,
when the deceased B.Srinivasa Siva Kumar reached near
Orvakai village on National Highway No.18 and proceeding on
the left side of the road at that time, A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation bus bearing registration no.AP28Z-
1580 came in opposite direction with a rash and negligent
manner without blowing horn and dashed the deceased, due
to which, the deceased fell down on the road and died
instantaneously.
5. A case was registered against the driver of the offending
vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C bus by the date of accident, the deceased
was aged about 30 years, he was hale and healthy and he
was working as Branch Post Master in Mundlapalli Village,
and he used to earn Rs.3,500/-per month.
6. The respondent filed a counter denying the claim of the
claimant.
7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: -
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing
registration No.AP28Z-1580, resulting in the death of
B.Sreenivasa Siva Kumar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?
8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant
PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked.
On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined and
no documents were marked.
9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the
entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.8,45,000/- to the petitioners with proportionate interest
and costs at the rate of 8% per annum, aggrieved thereby this
appeal is preferred by the sole respondent A.P.S.R.T.C
questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the
Tribunal.
10. Heard Sri K.Viswanadham, learned Standing Counsel
for A.P.S.R.T.C and no representation on behalf of
respondents/claimants.
11. Now the point for determination is whether the
order of the tribunal needs any interfere? If so, to what
extent ?
POINT:
12. The case of the claimant is that, the deceased was
proceeding on two wheeler on the left side of the road at that
time the driver of the offending vehicle APSRTC bus bearing
registration No.AP28Z-1580 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased due to
that he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and died at
this spot itself.
13. Pw.1 is none other than wife of the deceased she is not
an eye witness to the accident and Pw.2 is an eye witness to
the accident. The evidence of Pw.2 clearly shows that the
accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle APSRTC bus.
Ex.A1 is certified copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A4 is certified copy of
charge sheet also supports the same. The tribunal by giving
cogent reasons an appreciation of the entire evidence
available on record arrived at a conclusion that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP28Z-1580. I do not
find any legal flaw infirmity in the said finding given by the
Tribunal.
14. The case of the claimants is that, the deceased was aged
about 30 years and used to work as Branch Post Master and
used to earn Rs.3,500/- as on the date of accident and due
to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost their
dependency, pw1 deposed in her evidence that her husband
used to do agricultural work also and used to cultivate the
land of 5 acres and used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum and
further as software instructor he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per
month. On considering the evidence of Pw.3 and on
considering the entire material available on record coupled
with Ex.A6 is pay slip of the deceased, the tribunal arrived
monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000 per month
from out of 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of
the deceased after 1/3rd is deducted an amount is Rs.4,000/-
per month is available to the dependants it comes to
Rs.48,000/-per annum.As per the material available on
record, the deceased was aged about 27 years by the date of
his death by applying multiplier 17, the tribunal arrived at a
conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an amount of
Rs.8,16,000/- (Rs.48,000 x17) towards loss of dependency. I
do not find any illegality in awarding the said compensation of
Rs.8,16,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to the
above amount the tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs,2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards
transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate
in total the tribunal awarded Rs.8,45,000/- to the claimants
towards total compensation.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.K.Viswanadham
argued that in so far as the tribunal awarded excessive
interest at 8% per annum. In so far as awarding of interest at
8% per annum is concerned, since the accident took place in
the year 2009, this Court finds merit in the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant APSRTC that the tribunal
awarded exorbitant rate of interest and therefore the same
has to be reduced from 8% per annum to 6% per annum.
16. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of and the decree
and order dated 01.12.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.536 of
2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V
Principal District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.536 of 2009
is modified by reducing rate of interest from 8% to 6% per
annum. The order of Tribunal in all other respects shall
remain intact.
As sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Dated: 12.10.2023.
klk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2374 of 2012
12.10.2023
KLK
