Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 631 (AP)

APSRTC, Anantapur District v. Aruva Padmavathi

2023-03-23

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is the 3nd respondent/APSRTC in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Anantapur, and the respondents are the claimants and R1 and R2 in the said case. 2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition under section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death caused to Aruva Ramesh Babu, the husband of the 1st petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 18.10.2011 at about 2:00 pm. 4. The case of the claimants are as follows: On 18.10.2011 at about 02:00 p.m., while the deceased was going on his TVS XL Moped bearing No. AP 02 N 4753 from Gorantla to his village. When he reached near Chitravathi Bridge, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 came in the opposite direction and at that time the driver of the bus was driving at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without giving any side to the opposite vehicle. While so, the rider of the 1st respondent’s motor cycle bearing No.AP02 AH 2401 came in the opposite direction of the deceased by over taking the bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS XL Moped of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and the driver of the bus without stopping the bus ran over the deceased and the dragged the deceased to a distance of 20 feet and thereby the deceased has died on the spot itself. 5. The 1st respondent had remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a counter, denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased also denies the manner in which the accident is alleged to have occurred. The 2nd respondent further pleaded in fact, the accident had occurred due to the sheer negligence of the driver of the third respondent bus, but not due to rider of the motor cyclist, actually, the deceased was run over by the APSRTC bus and therefore, the driver of the third respondent is solely responsible for the accident. The petitioners have to establish that the crime motor cycle was insured with this respondent. The petitioners have to establish that the crime motor cycle was insured with this respondent. Even if issuance of policy is positively proved, the liability of this respondent will be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent further pleaded the rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid and effective and subsisting driving license by the date of the accident and therefore this respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation, the claim of the petitioners is excessive. 7. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, contending that on the alleged date of accident, the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 was proceeding towards Hindupur. While the bus reached near Hindupur-Kadiri road at Gorantla village, the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AH 2401 drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without taking precautionary measures dashed against one Moped bearing No.AP 02 N 4753 which is coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which the rider of the moped by name Ramesh Babu fell and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot, in fact, the driver of the R.T.C. bus drove it in slow manner by taking all precautions and therefore, the case is also registered only against the rider of the motor cycle and there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The third respondent further pleaded in fact, there was rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased and as well as the rider of the motor cycle, therefore, both riders of the motor cycle and Moped are responsible for that accident. Gorantla Police has also registered a case in Cr.No.111/2011 against the rider of the motor cycle by name Hari also and against the deceased rider of the Moped, the other allegations mentioned in the petition are denied, the claim of the petitioners is excessive. 8. Based on the above pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues : (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AH 2401 and A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 as they dashed against the TVS XL Moped of deceased Aruva Ramesh Babu and caused his death? Based on the above pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues : (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AH 2401 and A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 1786 as they dashed against the TVS XL Moped of deceased Aruva Ramesh Babu and caused his death? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? and if so, to what amount? and from which respondent? (iii) To what relief? 9. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondents, RW1 and RW4 are examined, Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 to X3 are marked. 10. Basing on the material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the motor cycle and A.P.S.R.T.C. bus vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the respondents No.1 and 3. 11. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent/APSRTC filed the present appeal. 12. Now the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. PW1 is the 1st petitioner in this case, she deposed in her evidence that her husband Ramesh Babu while going on a Moped had met with an accident and had died in a Motor Vehicle Accident. She has deposed about the involvement of the RTC bus and as well as motor cycle belonged to 1st respondent. PW1 has admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident, as per his evidence, the deceased was going on a Moped on that particular day and at that time the RTC bus came in a opposite direction and motor bike belonged to the 1st respondent came in a opposite direction. He further deposed in his evidence that the rider of the motor cycle while over taking the bus dashed against the Moped and thereby the deceased fell underneath the bus. Ex.A1 F.I.R. is clearly revealing the involvement of the RTC bus and also the motor bike belonged to 1st respondent in causing the accident while dashed against the deceased. He further deposed in his evidence that the rider of the motor cycle while over taking the bus dashed against the Moped and thereby the deceased fell underneath the bus. Ex.A1 F.I.R. is clearly revealing the involvement of the RTC bus and also the motor bike belonged to 1st respondent in causing the accident while dashed against the deceased. No doubt, the First Information Report is registered only against the rider of the motor cycle and the charge sheet is also filed against the rider of the motor cycle. The PW2 clearly deposed in his evidence that the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner without giving side to the opposite vehicle and had dragged the deceased for 20 feet distance, thereby the deceased had died. The trial Court by giving cogent reasons in its order clearly came to conclusion that both the RTC bus driver and rider of the TVS Moped are jointly responsible for the said accident and the driver of the bus and rider of the TVS Moped, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and both are responsible for the accident. There is no illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal below, therefore, there is no need interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. The Petitioners are claiming the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of husband of 1st petitioner, as per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 28 years, as per the Inquest report and Post-mortem Report, the deceased was aged about 30 years, the multiplier applicable to the deceased is “17”. As per decision of Smt. Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (4) SCJ 91, the deceased was working as a lorry driver and was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. And it was held by the trial Court in its order that the avocation of the deceased is not disputed by the respondents, and the dispute is with regard to the income of the respondents. Basing on the material on record the Trial Court fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and his annual income is Rs.60,000/-. There are five dependents on the deceased and 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. Therefore, the contribution to the family would come to Rs.45,000/-. Basing on the material on record the Trial Court fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and his annual income is Rs.60,000/-. There are five dependents on the deceased and 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. Therefore, the contribution to the family would come to Rs.45,000/-. Therefore, the loss of income to the petitioners would come to Rs.7,65,000/-(Rs.45,000/- x 17). The Tribunal held in its order that, the 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the petitioner are also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5.000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, the material on record clearly goes to show that the rider of the two-wheeler Hari Krishna was not having any kind of driving license by the date of the accident. he was in possession of L.L.R only and he has no license, the material on record revels that the rider of the motor cycle was holding L.L.R. 06.01.2011 to 05.04.2011 and also 02.02.2012 to 01.08.2012, therefore, by the date of the accident, i.e. on 18.10.2011, the rider of the motor cycle was not holding any license at all by the date. 16. In order to prove the contention of the 2nd respondent/insurance company that, the rider of the two-wheeler was not having any driving license to drive the two-wheeler, staff member of the RTA office is examined as RW4. RW4 deposed that the rider of the motor cycle of Hari Krishna was not holding valid driving license by the date of accident. 17. This Court has clearly stated about that both the driver of RTC bus and rider of the two-wheeler are equally responsible for the accident, the same leads to the death of the deceased. The driver of the RTC bus is agent of 3rd respondent. The owner of Moped is first respondent. The learned Tribunal gave the said finding there is violation of policy. The driver of the RTC bus is agent of 3rd respondent. The owner of Moped is first respondent. The learned Tribunal gave the said finding there is violation of policy. No doubt the two-wheeler is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and policy is also on force, but the rider of the two-wheeler is not having any kind of driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, both the 1st and 3rd respondents are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against respondent No. 1 and 3 as directed to both respondent No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order dated.31.12.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Anantapur. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.