Allowed

Apsrtc, Hyderabad v. Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, Krishna Dist & 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024MACMA/628/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals were disposed of: one by the driver/owner challenging liability due to alleged contributory negligence from triple riding, and another by claimants seeking enhanced compensation. The High Court held triple riding did not cause the accident, rejecting contributory negligence. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 11.64 lakhs based on correct income and multiplier application. The Transport C

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,64,105/- with interest at 8% p.a. to be deposited by APSRTC within two months before the Tribunal.

Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs Pagilla Srinivasa Rao… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON;BLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶7

MACMA Nos. 628 of 2016 & 535 of 2024

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 628 OF 2016

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against^theOrderand Decree dated 29-04-2015 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District in M.V.O.P No. 725 OF 2012.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatgion, Rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶13

AND

¶14

Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Pagifla Chennaiah, Hindu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. D.No. 8-39/1, Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶15

Gandepalli Aruna Kumari, W/o. Gandepalli Naha Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 40 years. House Wife, Residetn of^D.No.8-39/1 Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶16

Satti Kotaiah, S/o.Peda Subbaiah, Hindu. Aged about 38 years, Driver, Crime Vehicle bearing No. AP 28 Z 2506, Ammaq Mess back side, Old Bus Stand Centre, Sattupalli, Khammam District.

¶17

(R3 not necessary party)

¶18

...Respondents/Respondent No.1

¶19

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2015fMACMAMP. NO: 5763 OF 2015)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of^{theOrderandDecree} dated 29-04-2015 in M.V.O.P.No.725 OF 2012 passed by^{theCourtofthe} Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XIV Additional District, Vijayawada, Krishna District includingh the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Aravala Rama Rao - not present

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Smt Umadevi^Manchala

¶23

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 535 OF 2024

¶24

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP 725 of 2012,^{dt29.04.2015on} the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court Cum XIV Additional District Judge Vijayawada.

¶25

Between:

¶26

Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Pagilla Chennaiah, Hindu, 26 yrs, R/o D No8-39/1, Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna Dist,.

¶27

GandepalH Aruna Kumari, W/o Gandepalii Naga Mallikaijuna Rao, Hindu, age 40 yr, R/o D No-8-39/1, Tadigadapa Village,^Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna Dist,.( Claimants 1 and 2)

¶28

...Appellants

¶29

AND

¶30

Satti Kotaiah, S/o Peda Subbaiah, Hindu, 38 yrs. Driver of Vehicle NO AP 28 Z 2506, R/o Amma Mess Back Side, Old Bus Stand Centre, Sttupalli, Khammam Dist,.

¶31

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabagh, Hyderabad,^AP

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

Counsel for the Appellants : Ms.Umadevi Manchala

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: -

¶35

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶37

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.628 of 2016 & 535 of 2024

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶39

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter^called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2012 dated 29.04.2015. 2. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed^of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.628 of 2016 is preferred by the APSRTC/owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2506 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos. 1 and^2arethe husband and mother of one Pagilla Dhana Jyothi (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent^No.3isthe driver of the crime bus.

¶40

M.A.C.M.A.No.535 of 2024 is preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

¶41

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

¶42

The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

¶43

¶44

¶45

i). On 15.06.2012 at about 01.35 p.m., while the deceased-Dhana Jyothi proceeding on motorcycle, along with her father (P.W.2) and one Tarun, as pillion rider, when they reached near Kondaparva Cross Road on Nuzvid-Vissannapeta Road, the crime bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the deceased, her father and one Tarun received grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries,

¶46

ii). The deceased was aged about 22 years, working as Accountant in a private organization and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.8,13,000/- against the driver and owner of the said crime bus.

¶47

The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the triple riding of the motorcycle,^but

¶48

¶49

not 1st respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

¶50

“1.Whether the Deceased Pagilla Dhana Jyothi died in^a Motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.6.2012 at 01.35 p.m., on the Nuzvid-Vissannapet road, near Kondaparva Cross Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2506 by the 1®^ Respondent?

¶51

2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and how much amount? and

¶52

3.To what relief?”

¶53

During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A. 11 and X. 1 were marked.^On behalf of the respondent No.2, the 1®^ respondent/driver was examined as R.W.l, but no documents were exhibited.

¶54

On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that^the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the^crimebus by the l®t respondent, however, due to triple riding of the

motorcycle, wherein the deceased was travelling, which is against the provisions and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, the negligence is apportioned to an extent 80% to the l^t respondent and 20% to the P.W.2, who is rider of the said motorcycle. held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,44,000/-, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, for the death of the deceased^inthe accident.

¶59

It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the APSRTC and claimants respectively. 12. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.628 of 2016 and Miss.M.Umadevi, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.535 of 2024.

¶60

Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC submits that by the time of incident,^thereis triple riding of the motorcycle, on which the deceased was travelling, which is a cause for the incident, thereby, the

¶61

¶62

Tribunal erred in fixing 20% of the contributory negligence only on the part of the rider of the motorcycle; that the^APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants: that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the insurer.

¶63

On the other hand, Miss.M.Umadevi, learned counsel^for the appellants/claimants submits that even it is evident^thatby the time of incident, there is triple riding of the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling, it is not the cause for the incident, and there is no contributory negligence attributed against P.W.2, who is rider of the said motorcycle and no material is placed on record to accept the accident^occurreddue to contributory negligence; that the Tribunal erred^infixingthe contributory negligence on the part of the rider over^motorcycle in causing the incident, when rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver^ofthe crime bus; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement^of 'bosapensation in view of the settled legal position^andthereby

prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the^claimants

¶68

before the tribunal.

¶69

Now, the following points arise for determination:

¶70

Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the rider of the motorcycle (P.W.2) in causing the incident?

¶71

Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and

¶72

To what relief?

¶73

POINT No.l:

¶74

On this point, the Tribunal held that even the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, since there is triple riding of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, 20% of liability^canbe fastened on P.W.2 and 80% fixed on the 1st respondent/driver^of the crime bus.

¶75

It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased^inthe incident as well involvement of the crime bus and motorcycle, rash and negligent riding of the crime bus in causing the

¶76

¶77

incident by the respondent. It is also a fact that by the time of incident, there is triple riding of the motorcycle by P.W.2. 18. It is the specific contention of the claimants that^even if there is triple riding of the motorcycle in which the^deceased was travelling, it is not the cause for the incident, thereby, no contributory negligence attributed against P.W.2. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the claimants^relied upon the earlier pronouncement of this Court in United^India Insurance Company Limited v. K.Anjaiah}, wherein by relying upon the Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited V. Abdul Salam? and M.Anandavalliamma v. Aravind Eye Hospital, was

¶78

categorically held that;

¶79

'In other words, merely because there is violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules, or the policy conditions, it is not automatic that in every case^the principle of contributory negligence is to be applied

¶80

1 M04 (4) ALD 444 2 2008«(1)MLJ 489 3 2004 ACJ 140 (Madras)

¶81

¶82

¶83

mechanically. As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons on a motorcycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation

¶84

(emphasis supplied)

¶85

In the present case on hand also, it is not the case^ofthe APSRTC that the accident took place only because of^suchact that is travelling more persons on a motorcycle, on^whichthe deceased was travelling by the time of incident. On the other hand, it is categorically proved by the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.l, A.4 and A.5, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1 St respondent. Thereby, in view of the above precedents^aswell discussion made supra, the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of P.W.2 in causing the incident. As such, the owner of the crime bus is alone liable to satisfy the entire compensation entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

¶86

¶87

20. POINT N0.2:

¶88

Coming to the just compensation, it is the not in dispute that in view of Exs.A.6, A.7 and A. 10, the deceased is a Graduate and aged about 22 years by the date of incident. However, the Tribunal in the absence of documentary proof regarding avocation of the deceased, taken monthly^incomeof the deceased @ Rs.3,000/-, which is nothing but contrary^tothe eye of law, now a days even an unskilled labored can^earnmore than Rs.lOO/per day. Thereby, the actual income of^the deceased is determined at Rs.5,000/- per month, which^comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum.

¶89

As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi*, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as^follows;

¶90

Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to^clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lai Jain. Three

¶91

'•2017(6) ALT 60 (SC)

¶92

¶93

¶94

aspects need to be clariifed. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: -

¶95

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to he made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (l/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (l/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (l/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. ”

¶96

As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years (emphasis supplied)

¶97

In the present case, as per the above said decision,^40% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 22 years by the date of incident, which is not in

¶98

¶99

dispute. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.84,000/-(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/-). 24. In the case on hand, there are two claimants depending on the deceased, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be from^the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined^as Rs.56,000/-.

¶100

Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon^ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr^, at Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as follows :

¶101

11 it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident

5 2017(3) k:C315 V

12 While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant,^as the case may be there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168. Motor Vehicles Act 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country. (emphasis supplied)

■'1

The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of^the deceased i.e., 22 years is 18. The total loss of dependency^is determined at Rs. 10,08,000/- (Rs.56,000/- x 18).

¶110

CONVENTIONAL HEADS:

¶111

On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.6, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others'^, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.^ and Rojalini Nayak and others v. AJit Sahoo and others^, this Court can^award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/to each of the claimants, being Rs.96,800/- for loss of spousal and filial consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-

¶112

®(2018) 18 see 130

¶113

7(2022) see Online Se 1683 8 (2022) see Online SO 1683 17(2021) 11 see 780

¶114

¶115

and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). In addition, in view of the testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A. 11 medical bills, the claimants spent an amount of Rs.23,005/towards medical expenses of the deceased, which is also entitled by the claimants.

¶116

A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at
the compensation is set out infra:
S.No. Heads Calculation
1 The annual income of Rs.60,000/- per annum
the deceased.
2 40% of above(l) to be (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/-)
added as future Rs.84,000/-
prospects
3 l/3rd to be deducted as Rs.56,000/-
personal expenses of
deceased.
4
Compensation arrived (Rs.56,000/- X 18)
at on application of Rs. 10,08,000/-
multiplier 18.
Spousal and Filial Rs.96,800/-

¶117

¶118

	consortium	(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
	(husband and mother)
6	Loss of estate	Rs.18,150/-
7	Funeral expenses	Rs.18,150/-
8	Medical Bills	Rs.23,005/-
	Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7+8)	Rs.11,64,105/-

¶119

Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this^Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,44,000/- to Rs. 11,64,105/-.^Itis needless to say that the compensation as claimed on the remaining heads is not entitled by the claimants. Thus,^this appoint is answered accordingly.

¶120

POINT No.3:

¶121

In view of the findings on point Nos.l and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and liability to pay the

¶122

¶123

¶124

compensation to the claimants. As such, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is liable for dismissal and the appeal preferred by the claimants is liable to be considered.

¶125

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.628 of 2016 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.535 of 2024 is allowed. with costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,44,000/-^to Rs. 11,64,105/- with interest at 8% per annum, from^thedateof petition till the date of realization against respondent^Nos.1and 2/driver and owner of the crime vehicle. The respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner shall deposit the compensation amount whhin two months from the date of this judgment before^the Tribunal. On such deposit, the elaimants Nos.l and 2 are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally, they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon and the earlier apportionment made by the Tribunal towards entitlement of the claimants for compensation shall remain intact. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal forthwith on the compenschon

¶126

¶127

amount awarded to them. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any. already paid.

¶128

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶129

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶130

¶131

Sd/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum^{XIVAdditional} District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District (with^{recordsifany)}

¶136

One CC to Sri. Umadevi Manchala, Advocate [OPUC]

¶137

One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶138

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra^Pradeshat Amaravathi

5. Three CD Copies

stu

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/11/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.628 of 2016

¶145

a: 13 MAR 2025
M
^ ^ Current Section ^

¶146

DISMISSING THE MAGMA No. 628 of 2016 ALLOWING THE MAGMA No. 535 of 2024

¶147

/ / ii

¶148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶149

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶150

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶151

PRESENT

¶152

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶153

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 628 OF 2016

¶154

Between:

¶155

APSRTC, Rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶156

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶157

AND

¶158

Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Pagilla Chennaiah, Hindu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. D.No. 8-39/1, Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶159

Gandepalli Aruna Kumari, W/o. Gandepalli Naha Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 40 years. House Wife, Residetn of^D.No.8-39/1 Tadigadapa Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶160

Satti Kotaiah, S/o.Peda Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged about 38 years. Driver, Crime Vehicle bearing No. AP 28 Z 2506, Ammaq Mess back side. Old Bus Stand Centre, Sattupalli, Khammam District.

¶161

(R3 not necessary party)

¶162

...Respondents

¶163

¶164

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and^material papersⁱⁿ the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M Uma Devi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1& 2.

¶165

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶166

1 .That the M.A.C.M.A.No.628 of 2016 be and is hereby^dismissed and

¶167

2.That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶168

//TRUE COPY//

¶169

Sd/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶170

¶171