Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 725 (AP)

APSRTC v. M Gowramma

2025-06-18

V.SUJATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : V.SUJATHA, J. The APSRTC filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 22.11.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the petitioners and respondent No.2 therein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as per their claim, on account of the death of the deceased M. Ramana @ D.Ramana in a motor accident that occurred on 09.11.2013. 2. The appellant/APSRTC is the 1 st respondent, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners, respondent No.4 herein (mother of the deceased) is the 2 nd respondent and respondent No.5 herein/driver of the offending vehicle is 3 rd respondent before the Tribunal. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: The 1 st petitioner is the wife, 2 nd petitioner is the daughter and 3 rd petitioner is the son of the deceased M.Ramana. On 09.11.2013 at about 6.30 a.m., while the deceased, along with his assistant as pillion rider, was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP26-P 2271 from Kadiri to Nallacheruvu and when they reached near Allugundu Bus stop of Nallacheruvu Mandal on 205-Kadiri-Madanapalli road, the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02-Z-0094, driven by its driver/3 rd respondent, came from their back side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, which was going on the extreme left side margin of the road. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe head injuries and factures on his body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadiri. Later, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu, and from there, to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where, while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. A case was registered in Cr.No.81/2015 on the file of Nallacheruvu Police Station for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. 5. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 38 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was doing Mason and moulding work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. 5. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 38 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was doing Mason and moulding work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It was contended that the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family, which consisted of wife and two minor school-going children. Due to premature and untimely demise of the deceased, his family members lost their earning member as well as his love and affection. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 3 rd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 7. The 1 st respondent/APSRTC filed counter stating that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, who drove the bus very slowly, and that there were no dent marks on the RTC bus, which shows that it did not dash the motorcycle of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased, without having a valid driving licence, drove his motorcycle at a high speed negligently in a zigzag manner and lost control over the same and dashed the rear side of the RTC bus on its left side and thus, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the deceased was not having valid driving license and his two- wheeler is not covered by any insurance policy and the concerned police have registered a false case against the driver of the bus, at the instance of relatives of the deceased, in order to get wrongful gain from the 1 st respondent. It is further contended that liability may be apportioned by considering the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was not attending to any work and not earning any money due to ill-health. It is further contended that as the deceased has taken treatment at Government Hospital, the question of spending huge amount on medicines does not arise and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. 8. It is further contended that as the deceased has taken treatment at Government Hospital, the question of spending huge amount on medicines does not arise and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. 8. The 2 nd respondent/mother of the deceased also filed counter, stating that after the death of the deceased, the petitioners/claimants went to the parents’ house of the 1 st petitioner and since then the 2 nd respondent has been residing alone. The 2 nd respondent also asserted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. 9. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether Murali Ramana, S/o M.Venkata Ramana died on 09.11.2013 in the Motor accident near on NH 205 Kadiri-Madanapalli Road near Allugundu bus stop, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02-Z-094 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased Murali Ramana if so, whether they are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, from which respondent? 3. To what relief?” 10. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, 1 st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and pillion rider of the deceased as well as eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3, the 3 rd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. 11. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with proportionate costs against respondent Nos.1 and 3, awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit and respondents No.1 and 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount. Out of the said compensation amount, the 1 st petitioner/wife was awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, the 2 nd petitioner/daughter was awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the 3 rd petitioner/son was awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the 2 nd respondent/mother was awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1 st respondent was directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from the date of the order. The 1 st respondent was directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from the date of the order. On deposit of said compensation amount, the 1 st petitioner was held entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest and thereon and costs and the remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to her was directed to be deposited in any Nationalized bank for a period of three years. The 2 nd respondent was held entitled to withdraw her entire compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, while the entire compensation amount of the 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority. 12. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It is further contended that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle of the deceased were not made as parties to the claim petition and hence, the same is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the Tribunal even failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the earnings of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, without any documentary evidence to substantiate the same, and also erred in deducting 1/4 th of his income towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3 rd when there are three dependants. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 13. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants and mother of the deceased. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 15. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 13. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants and mother of the deceased. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 15. Though it is the contention of the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the pillion rider of the deceased on the date of accident was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. He, being an eye-witness to the incident, has narrated the manner of incident and categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. A perusal of the impugned award shows that nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit or discard his evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and Ex.A4-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the said finding. 16. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners contended that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a mason and doing moulding work, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased. However, they filed Ex.A5-Identity Card of the deceased showing that he was working as a mason. In view of the same, considering the fact that a person working as a mason would generally earn Rs.250/- per day, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month and his annual income was accordingly calculated at Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12), which in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ] , where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4 th of the income of the deceased. In the instant case, though the appellant contends that there are three dependant family members, it is to be noted that the mother of the deceased was impleaded as the 2 nd respondent in the claim petition and she claimed to be dependant on the deceased. Hence, there are four dependant family members i.e., wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4 th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and arrived at Rs.67,500/- per annum (Rs.90,000/- - Rs.22,500/-) towards his contribution to the family. By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘15’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years, as recorded in Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.10,12,500/- towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation . Further, the Tribunal opined that the 1 st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.10,37,500/- towards compensation, but however, as the claim petition was filed restricting the claim to Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.