The A.P.S.R.T.C., vs A.Allabakshu
2023 Latest Caselaw 5157 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 2434 of 2013

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Order and Decree, dated,

13.08.2012, passed in O.P. No. 203 of 2011 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, whereby, a claim

of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with

interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants towards

compensation, this instant appeal is preferred by the

respondent - A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,

questioning the legal validity of the Order of the Tribunal.


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)   The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the 'M.V. Act'],

against   the    respondent    claiming   compensation         of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one A. Reddy Nawaz [the

'deceased'], in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

03.06.2011.
                               2


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as

follows: -

i. On 03.06.2011, the deceased went to Gurramkonda

market for purchase of vegetables and other items

and while returning along with others in a auto

bearing registration No.AP04 Y 0910 and when

reached near Chittiboyanapalle Village, the driver of

the respondent A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration

No.AP10 Z 9444 coming from Rayachoti towards

Gurramkonda, drove the bus in a rash and negligent

manner, without taking proper care and caution,

dashed against the auto, due to which, the deceased

sustained injuries and died. The Police have

registered a case against the driver of the offending

vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. bus under the relevant provision

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. The

respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus; hence, the respondent is liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners.

5) The Respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. filed written statement

denying the claim of the claimants. The respondent

pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for any

compensation since the entire negligence is on the part of

the driver of the auto bearing registration No. AP04 Y 0910

and prays to dismiss the petition.

6) Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP10 Z 9444 involved resulting in the death of deceased by name A.Reddy Nawaz?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount?

iii) To what relief?

7) During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on

behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf the respondent,

RW1 was examined, however, no documentary evidence got

adduced.

8) At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the

material available on record, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of offending R.T.C. bus and

accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/A.P. State Road

Transport Corporation preferred the present Appeal.

9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

10) Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court, if so, to what extent?

11) POINT: The case of the claimants is that, on

03.06.2011, the deceased went to Gurramkonda market for

purchase of vegetables and other items and while he was

returning along with others in an auto bearing registration

No.AP04 Y 0910 and when the auto reached near

Chittiboyanapalle Village, the driver of the respondent

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z 9444,

coming from Rayachoti towards Gurramkonda, drove the

bus in a rash and negligent manner, without taking proper

care and caution, dashed against the auto, resulting the

deceased sustained injuries and died.

12) In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending bus, the petitioners relied on the

evidence of PW1 and PW2 and so also Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. PW1

is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye

witness to the accident. As per PW2's evidence, on

03.06.2011 she along with her deceased husband,

deceased herein and others were traveling in an auto to

reach their place, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus

belonging to Rayachoty Depot drove the bus in a rash and

negligent manner without taking proper care and caution,

dashed the auto, due to which the auto fell down and she

along with other persons sustained injuries and some

persons died. The Tribunal by assailing reasons came to a

conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13) Coming to the compensation, the case of the

claimants is that the deceased was a brilliant student on

the date of accident. Even though PW1 contended that the

deceased was assisting him in cultivation, no evidence was

brought on record to show that PW1 holding any

agricultural lands as on the date of accident. As per post-

mortem report and inquest report i.e., Ex.A3 and Ex.A4,

the deceased was aged about 14 years on the date of

accident. The said age mentioned in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 is

not disputed by the respondent. On considering the entire

material on record, the Tribunal arrived the notional

income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum by

applying the case law prevailed in those days and by

considering the age of the mother of the deceased, the

Tribunal arrived 'loss of dependency' for an amount of

Rs.2,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.5,000/-

towards 'loss of estate'. In total, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the claimants towards

total compensation. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity

in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

14) The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/A.P.

State Road Transport Corporation would submit that the

interest awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum, which

is excessive in nature.

15) In so-far-as awarding of interest @ 9% per annum is

concerned, since the accident took place in the year 2011,

this Court find merit in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal awarded

exorbitant rate of interest and, therefore, the same has to

be reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

16) Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of and the

Decree and Order, dated 13.08.2012, passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in O.P. No.203 of

2011 is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9%

per annum to 7.5% per annum. The order of the Tribunal

in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to

costs.

17) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 20.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2434 of 2013

20.10.2023

sm