Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Golla Mariyamma on 4 July, 2024

 APHC010253362024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                         [3470]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                       PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

              THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

     MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 378/2024

Between:

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation              ...APPELLANT

                                        AND

Smt Golla Mariyamma and Others                              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

     1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the appellant - the

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short „APSRTC‟).

2. The respondent claimant Nos.1 to 5 filed petition under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2018 in Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal - cum - VII Additional District Court, West Godavari, Eluru (in

short „Tribunal‟) claiming a sum of Rs.31 lakhs as compensation for the death of Golla Benni, the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent

Nos.2 to 4 in a motor vehicle accident caused by the offending vehicle bearing

No.AP 28Z 1509 i.e., APSRTC bus in accident dated 18.09.2017.

3. Case of claimants/respondents before the Tribunal was that the

deceased was aged about 39 years and he used to earn a sum of Rs.20,000/-

per month by working as driver-cum-owner of a Mini Goods Transport Vehicle

bearing No.AP 37 TB 8659. That being so, on the evening of 18-09-2017 at

about 4.00 p.m., the deceased went to Gudiwada on his motorcycle bearing

No. AP 37DC 4586 to bring back his daughter to home, who was studying 8th

class at RCM School, Gudiwada. At about 6.30 p.m., when they reached

Telephone Nagar, Ayyappaswamy Temple, Janardhanapuram village, the 1st

respondent being the driver of an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1509

drove the said bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, he fell on the

road and sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot.

4. Respondent No.1 in MVOP.No.618 of 2018 is the driver of the bus who

remained exparte.

5. Respondent No.2 -APSRTC- the present appellant filed written

statement denying the allegations of the claim petition and contending that the

driver of the APSRTC bus was not responsible for the accident. The

petitioners shall be put to strict proof that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. By the date of the accident the

deceased had no valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle. The accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased as he suddenly

came into the middle of the road. The crime vehicle was falsely implicated in

this case to claim compensation. Since the claim petitioners had not joined the

owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased in these proceedings,

the petition had become bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. Neither

the driver of the bus nor the claim petitioners informed about the accident to

the 2nd respondent (appellant) and as such it was not liable to pay any

compensation to the claim petitioners, who should be put to strict proof that at

the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 39 years and that he

was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a driver on his

vehicle. The claim-petitioners were not dependent on the deceased and they

were not entitled to claim any compensation.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased Golla Benni died in a motor vehicle accident on 18.09.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., at Hanuman Junction to gudiwada road at Telephone Nagar, Near Ayyappaswamy Temple, Janardhanapuram village, Nandiwada Mandal & PS Limits, Krishna District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1509 by the 1st respondent?

ii) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?

iii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties?

iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom?

v) To what relief?"

7. The claimants/respondents in support of their claim, examined PWs.1 &

2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. The driver of the bus himself

examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal recorded the findings on issue Nos.1 to 3 that the accident

took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus. The defence taken by the APSRTC that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the deceased, was not accepted. The finding was recorded that

there was no contributory negligence and it was due to the negligence of the

driver of the bus only. The petition was not bad for non-joinder of proper and

necessary parties. On issue No.4 the Tribunal recorded finding that the age of

the deceased was 39 years, and his monthly income was Rs.20,000/-.

Applying the applicable multiplier of 15 and after making deductions and

additions, it awarded the total amount of compensation as Rs.36,03,000/- with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition to date of realization. It also

made apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants.

9. The present appeal is filed challenging the award dated 18.03.2024.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monthly income of

the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- has been assessed on the high side, for which

there was no documentary proof, and only on the basis of the oral evidence.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the interest

awarded @ 9% per annum is also on the high side.

12. No other argument has been advanced.

13. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the

material on record.

14. In view of the aforesaid submissions only, the record of the Tribunal is

not considered necessary to be summoned for decision of this appeal.

15. The Tribunal has also observed that there was no documentary

evidence on the point of income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal

recorded that the contents of the FIR & Charge sheet disclosed that the

deceased used to work as driver on his own goods vehicle. The Tribunal

believed the oral evidence of P.Ws on point of income as Rs.20,000/- p.m.

16. The Tribunal, in para 21 of the award, considered the aspect of monthly

income of the deceased. It placed reliance in the case of Chandra @ Chand

alias Chandra and another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others 1 of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court and on consideration thereof, and of oral evidence on the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/-, determined such amount as

the monthly income, observing that in the absence of documentary evidence,

the oral evidence could be relied upon.

17. The Hon‟ble Apex court in Chandra's case (supra), held in para-9, as

follows:

"It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of

(2022) 1 SCC 198 the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month."

18. The Principle of law laid down in Chandra's case (supra) is that if the

claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly

income, the same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage

while computing the income. It was observed that there was no reason to

discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased on point of income.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not submit that there was any

evidence, contrary to the oral evidence of PWs on the point of income. In the

absence of any contrary evidence, the finding on the point of monthly income

of the deceased, recorded by the Tribunal, based on oral evidence of PWs

does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference.

19. On the next argument, i.e., rate of interest @ 9% per annum we find

that the same is not on the higher side but is a reasonable rate of interest.

20. In Rahul Sharma and another vs. another vs. National Insurance

Company Limited and others2, 9% interest of compensation from the date of

filing of the claim petition till realization was maintained.

21. In Kirti and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited3, also

9% interest was awarded. Para No.15 reads as under:-

"15. For the reasons aforestated, the appeals are allowed inpart. The total motor accident compensation of Rs 22 lakhs awarded by the High Court to the claimantappellants is increased by Rs 11.20 lakhs to reach a new total of Rs 33.20 lakhs. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid within two months along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Detailed Accident Report i.e. 23.05.2014, and shall be apportioned per the terms laid down by the Tribunal."

(2021) 6 SCC 188

(2021) 2 SCC 166

22. In Manusah Sreekumar and others vs. United India Insurance

Company Limited4, the Insurance Company was directed to pay enhanced

compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Para No.26

reads as under:-

"26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.29,73,520/- to the Appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the award. The Insurance Company shall pay the said amount either by way of demand draft in favour of the Appellants or deposit the same before the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid by it, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment."

23. In Anjali and others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others 5 , also the

interest @ 9% was allowed. Para No.21 is as under:-

"21. Thus the total compensation payable to the Appellants is Rs.25,91,388/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment of the compensation to the Appellants."

24. In view of the aforesaid judgment on the rate of interest 9%, the

submission that it is on the higher side is unsustainable. 9% interest has the

support of law.

25. There is no merit in the appeal. MACMA is dismissed at the admission

stage.

26. The appellant shall deposit the amount under the award in terms of the

award, without delay, after adjusting the statutory deposit for filing appeal

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1441

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 deposited in this Court, which amount shall be remitted by the Registry to the

Tribunal. The Tribunal shall ensure timely payment to the

claimants/respondents in terms of the Award.

27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal.