Dismissed

The Apsrtc, Rep.by its.Regional Manager, v. Mastan Gari Subhan Bee

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2024MACMA/48/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC appealed against a Tribunal award of Rs.17,16,500 to the family of a bus-washing worker killed in an accident caused by its bus. The High Court found the negligence proved through unrebutted claimant evidence and held the quantum reasonable under Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Tribunal award of Rs.17,16,500 upheld by dismissing the appeal without costs.

The Apsrtc, Rep.by its.Regional Manager, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

•c-

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶6

lyiPTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI NQ; 48 OF 2027

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment^and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.564 of 2017 dated 01.11.2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, R.M. Office, APSRTC Bus Stand, Kadapa (RTC Depot. Tirupati).

¶10

...Appellant/Respondent No.1

¶11

AND

¶12

Mastan Gan Subhan Bee, W/o late Dastagiri, aged about 25 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o D.No.13/478-3, Sarayapalli, S.Mydukur Mydukur, Kadapa District.

¶13

Mastan Gari Shajmeen, D/o late Dastagiri, aged about 05 years. Minor, (rep. by her next friend mother as natural guardian i.e., 1st petitioner).

¶14

Houlewrie " aged about 44 years, Occ.

¶15

Mastan Gari Dastagiri, S/o late Hussain Sab, aged about 50 years, Occ. Private Employee KldanTn®?® r Sarayapalii, S.Myddkur, Mydukur Kadapa District, presently came down ^ > y to Alamkhanpalli Village and Post, Kadapa City and District)

¶16

...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 4

¶17

Nallagatia Bhaskar Babu, S/o M.R. Munaswamy Naidu, aged about 56 years, Driver, R/o Thalambedu Village, N.R. Peta Post,^{ChittoorMandal} and District.

¶18

(5*^ Respondent herein is driver of APSRTC not necessary party)

¶19

...Respondent/Respondent No.2

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D KODANDARAMI REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶26

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 48 OF 2022

¶27

Between:

¶28

The APSRTC, Rep.by its.Regional Manager,

¶29

...APPELLANT(S)

¶30

AND

¶31

MASTAN GARI SUBHAN BEE AND OTHERS

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: D KODANDARAMI REDDY

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

3UDGMENT:-

¶36

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.

¶37

Petitioner No.l 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^washerman (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

¶38

¶39

¶40

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.l 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.l being the employer has to indemnify him and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶41

¶42

Basing on the above, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶43

(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^03Z 5176 or not?

¶44

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief?

¶45

During course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Ex.Al 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.l 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

¶46

¶47

respondent Nos.l 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.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

¶51

ground that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence^and awarded the aforesaid sum.

¶52

Now in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point that arisen for consideration is as follows:

¶53

Whether the award, of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so to what extent”? Point:

¶54

Learned Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and also relying on several decisions¹⁾ KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 AC3 421 SC, 2) BASANT KAUR AND ORS. VS. CHATTARPAL 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^ofthedriver of the offending vehicle. 13. As seen from the evidence of PWs.l to 3 and Exs.Al to A8, it is observed that the accident occurred was due^totherash and negligent driving of the respondent No.l/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 l/4th for the personal expenses^of

¶55

0 )

¶56

¶57

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.l 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.l, 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^thewitness box. So, what all the facts averred on behalf of the claimant in the form of examination of PWs.l to 3 and marking of^Exs.Alto

f (

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.

¶62

Now, there is no dispute that respondent No.l is the owner and respondent No.2 is the driver, claimants^areentitled to compensation from both the respondents.

¶63

Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Considering the evidence of PWs.l 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 l/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%^asfuture 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.l 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.

¶64