Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 112 (AP)

APSRTC v. Tadepalli Swaroopa

2020-02-12

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : R Raghunandan Rao, J. The present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in the MVOP against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 28.10.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.541 of 2015. 2. The said M.V.O.P came to be filed by five petitioners, who are respondents in this appeal. The case of the petitioners in M.V.O.P. was that Tadepalli Venikateswara Rao (deceased) had passed away in an accident involving Auto bearing registration No.AP-37Y-7694 driven by the deceased and an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-29Z-3361. The said accident had occurred on 13.11.2014 near Yagarlapalli road around 6 pm., in the evening. The 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased. Respondents 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. 3. The case of the petitioners, who are the dependants of the deceased, in M.V.O.P.No.541 of 2015 was that the deceased had died in an accident, which was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus and that the deceased was aged about 26 years and earning about Rs.8000/- per month. On this basis, a claim for Rs.9,65,000/- was made under various heads. 4. After a trial in the matter, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, and awarded compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- with proportionate costs of Rs.9,588/- and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. claiming that the award of compensation is uncalled for as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It is the further case of the appellant herein that the calculation of compensation is incorrect as the multiplier of 17 applied by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is incorrect as there was no proof of the age of the deceased at 29 years, and further the fixation of Rs.5000/- per month by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a serious irregularity which vitiates the award. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident was not due to any rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and that the findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in relation to the age of the deceased, his income and applying the multiplier of 17 are incorrect. 7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus in view of the evidence given by PW.2 and PW.3, and observed that their evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal gave a finding on the age of the deceased on the basis of the driving licence, which was marked as Ex.A.6, where the death of the deceased was shown as !4.01.1985. 9. The claim of the petitioners in M.V.O.P., was that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal discredited their claim and held that a monthly income of Rs.5000/- can safely be taken by considering the occupation of the deceased as an auto driver. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi had applied the multiplier 17 on the basis of the age of the deceased. 10. The finding given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the multiplier applied by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal appear to be in accordance with law and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. Hence the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.