The A.P.S.R.T.C., vs Chintakomma Venkatramana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5164 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 2417 of 2013

JUDGMENT: -

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

13.08.2012, passed in O.P. No. 204 of 2011 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, whereby, a claim

of Rs.3,94,000/- 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 Chinthakomma Jyothi

[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 and the 2nd petitioner

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

the 2nd petitioner and others also received injuries.

The Police has 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 Chinthakomma Jyothi?

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.A6 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.3,94,000/- 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 and the 2nd petitioner went to

Gurramkonda market for purchase of vegetables and other

items and while they were 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 the 2nd petitioner 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.A6. 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 the deceased and others were traveling in a

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 the

deceased sustained severe injuries and later she

succumbed to the injuries. 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

completed 10th class by the date of accident and she was

about to join intermediate. To prove the said fact, the

petitioners produced Ex.A5, which is School Secondary

Certificate, which discloses that the deceased passed 10th

standard in the examination held in the month of March

2011 by securing good marks. The Tribunal by giving

cogent reasons arrived at a conclusion that the deceased

was a bright student and she passed the 10th standard

with good marks and the said Ex.A5 clearly reveals that

the deceased secured about 73% marks. By assailing

reasons, the notional net income of the deceased was taken

as Rs.24,000/- per annum by the Tribunal. The Tribunal

by relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata

Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar 1 and considering

the age of 2nd claimant as '34', the Tribunal applied the

relevant multiplier of '16' and arrived 'loss of dependency'

AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3218

to Rs.3,84,000/-. 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.3,94,000/- to the claimants. 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.204 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. 2417 of 2013

.10.2023

sm