The Ap,S.R.T.C vs Myadala Narayanamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 5160 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 2436 of 2013

JUDGMENT: -

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

13.08.2012, passed in O.P. No. 218 of 2011 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, whereby, a claim

of Rs.1,82,000/- 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.5,05,000/- for the death of one Mydala Ramaiah [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 and others also received

injuries. The Police have registered a case against the

driver of the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. bus under

the relevant provisions 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 Derangula Reddeppa @ Chinna Reddeppa?

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.A7 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.1,82,000/- 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 and others also

received injuries.

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.A4. 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 claimed by the

petitioners, the case of the claimants is that the deceased

used to do cultivation and seasonal business and he was

holding Ac.8.00 cents of dry and wet land and having

borewell and he raised mango garden in the said land and

he also took lands on lease from others and was earning

Rs.25,000/- per month on doing business and cultivation.

In-fact, the claimants did not produce any cogent evidence

to prove the said earnings of the deceased. By giving cogent

reasons, the Tribunal arrived the notional monthly income

of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/-

per annum. The Tribunal by assailing reasons arrived at a

conclusion of net income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/-

per month. Since, the age of the deceased was '60' years by

the date of accident, the Tribunal by applying relevant

multiplier of '9' arrived at Rs.1,62,800/- [Rs.18,000/- x 9]

towards 'loss of dependency' to the 1st claimant and no

compensation was awarded by the Tribunal to the 2nd

claimant. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' to the 1st

claimant; Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards ''funeral

expenses' and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of

estate'. In total, the Tribunal awarded total compensation

of Rs.1,82,000/- to the 1st claimant. 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. 218 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. 2436 of 2013

Date : 20.10.2023

sm