Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Apsrtc, Rep.By Its.Regional ... vs Mastan Gari Subhan Bee, on 16 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 48 OF 2022
Between:
The APSRTC, Rep.by its.Regional Manager, ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
MASTAN GARI SUBHAN BEE AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondents: D KODANDARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
-
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed against the award, dated
01.11.2021 passed in M.V.OP.No.564 of 2017, on the file of
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional
District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District ("Tribunal" for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 is the
daughter and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the
deceased M.Dastagiri. M.Dastagiri was working as a washer man
(washing of buses) in A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot, Mydukur since three
years engaged by an outsourcing agency by name M/s Pragna
Sree Consultancy Service of K.Sunkesula of Khajipet Mandal,
Kadapa District with a monthly payment of Rs.6,295/- along
with contribution of provident fund. He was aged 28 years at the
time of accident. On the intervening night of
30.07.2016/31.07.2016, while M.Dastagiri was going to his
Village Nagayapalli and when he reached near Judge Kotalu on
Mydukur-Duvvur Main Road, the respondent No.2 drove the
A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 03 Z 5176 („offending vehicle‟
for short) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed M.Dastagiri,
due to which he died on the spot and the persons who witnessed
the accident shifted M.Dastagiri to the Hospital and informed to
the petitioners over phone. Basing on the complaint of the
complainant, a case in crime No.76 of 2016 for the offence
under Section 304-A of I.P.C. was registered and conducted
investigated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed alleging rash and negligent act on the part of the
respondent No.2. Hence, the petition.
3. The respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the
averments of the petitioner and put the petitioners to strict
proof of the same. The respondent No.2 also filed written
statement stating that he is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus
and there is no fault and negligence on his part and that
respondent No.1 being the employer has to indemnify him and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Basing on the above, the Tribunal framed the following
issues for trial:
(1) Whether the deceased M.Dasthagiri died due to the
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on
30.07.2016/21.07.2016 due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 03 Z
5176 or not?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation,
if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
5. During course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A.8 were
marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
6. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on
considering the oral and documentary evidence, answered the
issues in favour of the petitioners and awarded a compensation
of Rs.17,16,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum along with
future interest with costs and apportioned the compensation
among the petitioners. Further held that the petitioner No.1 was
permitted to withdraw Rs.8,58,250/- with accrued interest and
costs, the petitioner No.2 was awarded with an amount of
Rs.2,86,084/- and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were awarded with an
amount of Rs.2,86,083/-. As petitioner No.2 was a minor her
share of compensation was ordered to be kept in any
Nationalized Bank till she attains majority and that both the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation within one month from the date of judgment.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. came to
be filed.
8. Heard Sri K.Viswanatham, learned standing counsel for
the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C and Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Sri K.Viswanatham, learned standing counsel for the
appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C., would contend that the accident
occurred was due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased
who fell down by consuming alcohol and that the Tribunal did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. He would
submit that the compensation awarded is excessive, as such it is
liable to be decreased.
10. Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents, would canvass a contention that the Tribunal
rightly considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the
claimants. The driver of the offending vehicle did not enter into
the witness box and did not contest the claim. Evidence on
record reveals that the incident occurred was due to rash and
negligent act of respondent No.2 in driving the offending vehicle.
The Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants.
He would seek to support the judgment of the Tribunal on the
ground that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and
awarded the aforesaid sum.
11. Now in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point that
arisen for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the award, of the Tribunal needs any
interference, if so to what extent"?
Point:
12. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as
documentary evidence and also relying on several decisions 1)
KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 ACJ 421 SC, 2) BASANT KAUR
AND ORS. VS. CHATTAR PAL SINGH & ORS., 2003 ACJ 369
MP (DB) and 3) NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD. VS.
PUSHPA RANA, 2009 ACJ, 287, held that the accident
occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
13. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to
A8, it is observed that the accident occurred was due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver of the
offending vehicle and that the claimants are entitled for the
compensation.
14. On perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal by
applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma‟s case, applied
multiplier 17 and deducted 1/4th for the personal expenses of
the deceased and arrived income of the deceased as that of
Rs.10,71,000/- and by applying the principles laid down in
Pranay Sethi‟s case, took 50% as future prospects awarded
Rs.50,35,500/-, a total sum of Rs.16,06,500/- was awarded
towards loss of dependency. And towards consortium to
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 Rs.80,000/- was awarded and towards
loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses and granted total compensation of
Rs.17,16,500/- as above.
15. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the
petitioner proved the rash and negligent act against respondent
No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, and that on account of
it, he received grievous injuries. As seen from the evidence of
PW.1, she was the defacto complainant. It is true that she was
no other than the wife of the deceased. But her evidence was in
accordance with the record. Ex.A2-inquest report and
Ex.A3-postmortem certificate would support that the deceased
died in a motor vehicle accident. The same is not disputed by
the respondents also. As seen from Ex.A4, police completed the
investigation by filing charge sheet alleging rash and negligent
act against the respondent No.2. For obvious reasons,
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not choose to step into the witness
box. So, what all the facts averred on behalf of the claimant in
the form of examination of PWs.1 to 3 and marking of Exs.A1 to
Ex.A8 remained un-rebutted. So, the claimants are able to prove
that accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of
respondent No.2 and that the deceased died in the said motor
vehicle accident.
16. Now, there is no dispute that respondent No.1 is the
owner and respondent No.2 is the driver, claimants are entitled
to compensation from both the respondents.
17. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, Considering
the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, and the circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal awarded by applying the principles laid down in
Sarla Verma‟s case, applied multiplier 17 and deducted 1/4th
for the personal expenses of the deceased and arrived income of
the deceased as that of Rs.10,71,000/- and by applying the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi‟s case, took 50% as future
prospects awarded Rs.50,35,500/-, a total sum of
Rs.16,06,500/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. And
towards consortium to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 Rs.80,000/- was
awarded and towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and granted
total compensation of Rs.17,16,500/- cannot be said as
unreasonable.
18. Having regard to the above, absolutely this Court does not
find any tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
order of the Tribunal.
19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the
circumstances without costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 16.02.2024
Vnb
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Date: 14.02.2024
Vnb
